Skip to main content

Full text of "Colin Brown (ed.), Dictionary Of New Testament Theology (4 vol.)"

See other formats

THEOLOGY is a unique source of 
information, invaluable to ministers, teachers, 
and anyone interested in the study as well as 
the teaching of the Bible. 

Some of its main features are: 

@ Concise discussion of the major theological 
terms of the Bible 

@ Arranged in English alphabetical order; 
does not demand prior knowledge of Greek 
or Hebrew 

e Discusses the use of each key word in 
classical and secular Greek, the Old 
‘Testament and Rabbinic writings, the New 
Testament usage and reference 

@ English edition based on Theologisches 
Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, 
extensively revised and enlarged 

© Glossary of Technical Terms giving concise 
definitions of specialist expressions and 
usage in Vol. | 

@ Index of Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and 
theological subjects (Vol. 1 and 2 separately 
indexed, Combined Index to all three Vols. 
in Vol. 3) 

@ Full and up-to-date bibliographies 

@ International team of contributors 

The three-volume set of The New 

International Dictionary of New Testament Theology 
is a treasure house of knowledge concerning a 
study of Greek words. But it is so written as to 
be usable by pastors and lay people who are 
not versed in the Greek language. It treats 
these words in alphabetical order and relates 
them to passages in which they appear in the 
New Testament. 

Unlike most works of this type, these 
volumes provide 2 maximum of information 
with a minimum of reading. I know ofno other 
work like it. And I heartily recommend it to all 
serious students of the New Testament. 

Herschel H. Hobbs 
Past President of the Southern Baptist 
Convention on 

The New 

of New Testament 


The New 

Dictionary of 

Companion Volume 


Volume 2: G-Pre 

New lIestament 

Theolo gy 

Colin Brown 

Translated, with additions and revisions, from the German 

Edited by Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther and Hans Bietenhard 

na = pool 

from Zondervan Publishing House 
1415 Lake Drive, S.E., Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506 

Originally published in German under the title, 

© 1967, 1969, 1971 by Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, Wuppertal. English Lan- 
guage edition copyright © 1976, The Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 
U.S.A. and The Paternoster Press, Ltd. Exeter, Devon, U.K. 

All rights in this work are reserved by the publishers, and no part 
may be reproduced without wntten permission, except for brief 
quotations in reviews. 

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 
Main entry under title: 

The new international dictionary of New Testament 

‘Translated, with additions and revisions, from the 
German Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament, 
edited by Lothar Coenen, Erich Beyreuther and Hans 

“Companion volume: The new international dictionary 
of the Christian Church.” 

Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 

1. Bible. N.T.—Theology—Dictionanes. 2. Bible. 
N.T.—Dictionanes. ‘I. Brown, Colin. 

BS2397.N48 230’.03 75-38895 
ISBN 0-310-21900-0 

Printed in the United States of America 

84 85 86 87 88— 10 


PREFACE . 2, , : : ; 7 
ARTICLES . : , . ; ; 27 
GREEK WORDS . : , , , . 942 

GENERAL INDEX ; ; ; : . 956 

ADDENDA : ; : , ; . 1025 


Omnis recta Dei cognitio ab obedientia nascitur — “‘All right knowledge of God is 
born of obedience.” This was the testimony of Calvin in his Jnstitutes of the 
Christian Religion, 1, 6, 2. It could be said that church history is the story of how 
the people of God have learned this truth the hard way. The relevance of Calvin’s 
observation does not stop there. What applies to institutions applies equally to 
individual lives. Yet the Christian religion is not one of relentless dour demands 
and gritted determination to do better next time. As Calvin went on to say, “‘Surely 
in this respect God has, by his singular providence, taken thought for mortals 
through all ages.”’ 

The Bible is not only the primary historical source for our knowledge of ancient 
Israel and the beginnings of the Christian church; it is the record of God’s gracious 
dealings with his people in times past and the Word of God for them today. The 
obedience to which God calls is not blind submission but a considered response 
to himself as he has revealed himself in the past — and as he continues to reveal 
himself in the present in the light of the past. 

The Reformers distinguished three aspects of faith: cognition, assent and trust. 
Without the element of trust theology is a mere intellectual exercise which becomes 
increasingly irrelevant in the modern world. But unless our trust has a basis in 
fact — and can be shown to have a basis in fact — then faith is at the mercy of the 
crank and the fanatic. Clearly, studying a work like The New International Dic- 
tionary of New Testament Theology is no substitute for the obedience of which 
Calvin spoke. Knowledge of God comes about in the whole range of life through 
response to the God who reveals himself and illuminates our way in his Word. 
But in order to be obeyed the Word must first be understood. It is with the under- 
standing of the Word, as it is expressed in the words of the New Testament, that 
this dictionary is concerned. 

The present volume contains 106 main articles on New Testament concepts, 
comprising 256 studies arranged under key Greek words or themes. The entries 
under the key Greek words are normally divided into three parts as follows: 

CL Discussion of the word in secular Greek. Uses of the word are illustrated by 

reference not only to classical literature but also to inscriptions and papyri. 
But in view of the expressly theological interest of the dictionary discussion here 
is kept to a minimum. 

oT Discussion of the word and related terms in the OT. The language of the 
church in the NT era was Greek, and the Old Testament Scriptures used by 
the church were largely the Greek translation of the Hebrew known as the 
Septuagint (LXX). The discussion is therefore based on the terms as they occur 


in the LXX, but comparing the LXX throughout with the corresponding Hebrew 
Masoretic text. This section also takes account of terms as used by Philo, 
Josephus, the Dead Sea Scrolls and rabbinic writers. 

NT Discussion of the word and related terms in the NT, noting statistical 
occurrences, the use in relation to the background, and specific emphases of 
individual writers and writings. 

For further discussion of the layout and scope of the dictionary the reader is 
referred to the Introduction to Volume I. 

The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology is based upon the 
Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament which was first published in 
German in 1965. In preparing this work for English readers the opportunity has 
been taken to make revisions and to incorporate extensive new material. This 
second volume contains 22 completely new articles and a total of 71 new entries 
on key Greek words and related themes. However, in addition much new material 
has been incorporated into the revision of the existing articles. The bibliographies 
have been completely revised. As in Volume I, they have been divided into two 
sections: (a) works in English, and (b) works in other languages. The purpose is to 
offer readers a conspectus of literature as a guide to the immense amount of work 
that has been carried out in biblical studies in recent years. The separation of the 
two sections will enable them to see at a glance which works are relevant to their 
particular needs. Most English readers will naturally wish to consult the works in 
the first section. On the other hand, it was decided to include titles not available 
in English in order to meet the needs of the more specialist student. 

In his review of the first volume of this Dictionary Dr. I. H. Marshall suggested 
that “‘It is probably best taken as a reference work to the words used in any 
particular NT text, by means of which the reader may be guided to the ideas 
expressed by those words and thus have a better understanding of the text” (EQ 
48, 1976, 106). The Editor finds himself in basic agreement with this view, if it be 
stressed that to understand the words of the text one has also to penetrate the 
thought-world of their background. In preparing this English edition the over- 
riding aim has been to present a concise and yet balanced guide to the theological 
vocabulary of the NT in the light of international contemporary scholarship. 
Like al] other academic disciplines, theological study has experienced a knowledge- 
explosion in the last half-century. It is essential to the purpose of The New Inter- 
national Dictionary of New Testament Theology to enable the reader to explore for 
himself the new avenues of discovery that have been opened up and to weigh for 
himself the views of scholars who have contributed to the modern study of the Bible. 

The draft translation of the German original was prepared by a team of scholars 
which included Professor G. H. Boobyer, the Rev. Dr. Colin Brown, Mr. H. L. 
Ellison, the Rev. M. C. Freeman, the late Rev. Dr. George Ogg, Mr. John D. 
Manton, the Rev. Philip J. Seddon, the Rev. David Sharp and the Rev. Dr. A. J. M. 
Wedderburn. A particular debt of gratitude is owed to Professor F. F. Bruce, 
Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis in the University of Man- 
chester. In addition to the contributions which appear over his name, Professor 
Bruce has read the entire work in galley and page proof. He has been unstinting 



in the advice and expert help that he has given from first to last. Thanks are also 
due to the Rev. A. C. Thiselton of the University of Sheffield for reading the type- 
script of the bibliographies and for making many helpful suggestions. Once again 
the Rev. Michael Sadgrove has shouldered the heavy burden of proof-reading 
in the course of his doctoral studies at Oxford. The magnificent indexes are entirely 
the work: of the Rev. Norman Hillyer whose sharp and fresh eye has also con- 
tributed to the correction of the page proofs. On numerous points of detail the 
Editor has benefited from the advice and comments of many friends and colleagues 
in addition to those already named. Among them are Dr. Cleon Rogers, Principal 
of the Freie Theologische Akademie, Seeheim, Bergstrasse, the Rev. J. A. Motyer, 
the Rev. G. T. D. Angel, the Rev. P. J. Budd, Miss J. G. Baldwin, Miss E. M. 
Embry and Miss M. Langley of Trinity College, Bristol, Mr. Alan Millard of the 
University of Liverpool, Dr. D. W. Burdick of the Conservative Baptist Theo- 
logical Seminary, Denver, Colorado, Dr. Janice Allister and Dr. M. G. Barker. 

The article on Prayer contains the Eighteen Benedictions used in daily Jewish 
prayer, in the translation of the Rev. R. A. Stewart which first appeared in his 
book Rabbinic Theology: An Introductory Study, published by Oliver and Boyd, 
1961. They are reproduced here by kind permission. Scripture quotations in this 
Dictionary from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible are used by permission 
of the owners of the copyright, the Department of Christian Education of the 
National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. 

Finally, the Editor would like to record once more his appreciation of the happy 
co-operation at all stages of the work with the Editor of the German edition, Dr. 
Lothar Coenen, and the German publishers, the Theologischer Verlag Rolf 
Brockhaus of Wuppertal, and to thank them for their kind agreement to the 
features incorporated in the English edition. He also wishes to pay tribute to the 
skill and craftsmanship of the staff of Redwood Burn in producing such a handsome 
book from a typescript which was often well-nigh illegible. 

A full list of abbreviations and a key to the transliteration of Hebrew, Greek 
and Arabic words will be found in Volume 1, pp. 31-47. Volume 1, pp. 49-72, also 
contains a Glossary of Technical Terms which defines many of the terms currently 
used in theological discussion. 

For this new printing of the Dictionary, the opportunity has been taken to make a 
number of minor corrections and alterations, and the bibliographies have been 
updated in the Addenda. 

C. Brown, 1981. 

Table of Articles in Volume II 


Gall, Poison, 

Gate, Door 



Gift, Pledge, 


Last, End, 

God, Gods, 


Gold, Silver, 
Bronze, Iron 

Good, Beautiful, 


xoan, 106, 

mbAn, TvAG@YV 









choleé, ios, 

pylé, pylon 









L. Morris 27 
D. Hill 29 
D. Hill 30 
A. A. Trites 31 
A. A. Trites 33 
R. Morgenthaler, 35 
C. Brown 

O. Becker 39 
H. Vorlander 40 
C. Brown 43 
S. Aalen 44 
S. Aalen 48 
W. Bauder, 52 
H.-G. Link 

H.-G. Link 55 
R. Schippers 59 
J. Schneider, 66 
C. Brown, 

J. Stafford Wright 

J. Stafford Wright, 86 

C. Brown 

W. Mundle 
W. Giinther 

J. G. Baldwin 
J. G. Baldwin 
J. G. Baldwin 
J. G. Baldwin 

E. Beyreuther 






Gospel, Evangelize, 

Grace, Spiritual Gifts 


Guard, Keep, 

Convict, Blame 


Right Hand, 

Left Hand, 

Laying on of Hands 

Hard, Hardened 




























E. Beyreuther 
E. Beyreuther 

U. Becker 

H.-H. Esser 
H. Bietenhard 

W. Gunther 
W. Bauder, 
D. Miiller 

H.-G. Schiitz 
H.-G. Schiitz, 
C. Brown 
C. Brown 
C. Brown 

F. Thiele, 
C. Brown 
H.-G. Link 
F. Thiele 

T. McComiskey 

C. Blendinger 
C. Brown 

F. Laubach, 
C. Brown 
H.-G. Schiitz 

U. Becker 

K. Munzer, 
C. Brown 

F. Graber, 
D. Miiller 
F. Graber, 
D. Miiller 
D. Miiller 

W. Mundle 
W. Mundle 

T. Sorg 

B. Siede, 



















Hell, Abyss, 
Lower Regions 

Herb, Plant, Grass 



Holy, Consecrate, 
Sanctify, Saints, 





I Am 














EY eipti 

elK QV 













ego eimi 

charak tér 


C. Brown 
H. Bietenhard 
H. Bietenhard 

J. Blunck 
J. Blunck 
D. Miiller 

H. Bietenhard 
H. Bietenhard 
H. Bietenhard 
H. Bietenhard 

N. Hillyer 

W. Mundle 
W. Mundle 

C. H. Peisker 
C. H. Peisker 

H. Seebass, 
C. Brown 

H. Seebass 
H. Seebass 

E. Hoffmann 
E. Hoffmann 

J. Goetzmann 

J. Goetzmann 
J. Goetzmann 

W. Bauder 
H.-H. Esser 

W. Bauder 

H. Kropatschek 

E. Tiedtke 
G. Braumann 
G. Braumann 

G. Braumann, 
H.-G. Link 

W. Mundle 
O. Flender 
J. Gess 







Lot Portion 

Israel, Jew 
Hebrew, Jacob, 


Jesus Christ, 

Cleave to 




Judgment Seat 

King, Kingdom 
















K pia 





















J. Eichler 
W. Mundle 

R. Mayer 
T. McComiskey 
T. McComiskey 

H. Schultz 

K. H. Rengstorf 
K. H. Rengstorf 
K. H. Rengstorf 
K. H. Rengstorf 

H. Seebass 

J. A. Motyer 

E. Beyreuther 
E. Beyreuther 
E. Beyreuther, 
G. Finkenrath 

W. Schneider 
H. Beck 

T. McComiskey 
T. McComiskey 

B. Klappert 
E. Schutz 

E. D. Schmitz 
E. Schutz 

J. Gess 
R. Tuente 

R. K. Harrison 
R. K. Harrison 

H. Haarbeck 
H. Haarbeck 








Lead Astray, 








Lord’s Supper 







AEN pa 
























H. Haarbeck, 
H.-G. Link 

T. McComiskey 
T. McComiskey 
T. McComiskey 

F. Thiele 
F. Thiele 

E. M. Embry 

H.-H. Esser 
H.-H. Esser 
H.-H. Esser 

O. Flender 

W. Giinther 

G. T. D. Angel 

R. K. Harrison 
R. K. Harrison 

H. L. Ellison 

W. Giinther 
U. Becker, 
H.-G. Link 

H.-G. Link 
H.-G. Link 

H.-C. Hahn 
H.-C. Hahn 
H.-C. Hahn 

T. McComiskey 
H.-C. Hahn, 

C. Brown 

E. Beyreuther 

E. Beyreuther, 
G. Finkenrath, 
M. Farmery 

H. Bietenhard 
H. Bietenhard 

B. Klappert 

































- Yapayua. 



























W. Giinther, 538 
H.-G. Link 

W. Giinther, 547 
C. Brown 

C. Brown, 552 
J. Stafford Wright 

H. Vorlander, 562 
C. Brown 

H. Vorlander, 564 
J. Stafford Wright 

C. Brown 569 

R. P. Martin §72 
R. P. Martin 573 
R. P. Martin 574 

W. Giinther, 575 
C. Brown 

H. Reisser 582 
W. Giinther 584 
T. McComiskey 586 
C. Brown 587 

B. A. Demarest 590 
B. A. Demarest 592 

H.-H. Esser 593 
H.-H. Esser 598 
H.-H. Esser 599 
O. Betz 601 
O. Betz 606 

C. Blendinger 611 

J. Goetzmann 616 

W. Mundle 620 
O. Hofius, 626 
C. Brown 

O. Hofius 633 
H. Seebass, 635 
C. Brown 

F. F. Bruce 643 

H. Bietenhard, 648 
F. F. Bruce 









Stumbling Block 














Kai pnvac &E 




















eniautous tres 
kai ménas hex 












G. Harder 

R. Morgenthaler 

E. Tiedtke, 
H.-G. Link 
E. Tietdke, 
H.-G. Link 
C. Brown 

H. Haarbeck, 
H.-G. Link, 
C. Brown 

H. Haarbeck 

C. J. Hemer 

T. McComiskey, 

C. Brown 
F. F. Bruce 

E. D. Schmitz, 
C. J. Hemer 
. Hemer 

mam ANN 


OOO 2 © 

R. T. France 

H. Haarbeck 

K.-H. Bartels 
K.-H. Bartels 
K.-H. Bartels 










Feast of 









kK AéIC 
































C. H. Peisker, 
C. Brown 

D. Miller, 

C. Brown 

H.-C. Hahn 

J. Pridmore 

F. Selter, 
C. Brown 

C. H. Peisker, 
C. Brown 
C. H. Peisker 

H. Bietenhard, 
C. Brown 

U. Falkenroth, 
C. Brown 

W. Mundle 

U. Falkenroth, 
C. Brown 

U. Falkenroth, 
C. Brown 

H. Beck, 
C. Brown 

J.D. G. Dunn 

H. Bietenhard 
H. Bietenhard 
H. Bietenhard 
H. Bietenhard 
H. Bietenhard 

. Ebel 
. Schippers 

D. Miiller 

H. Bietenhard 
H. Bietenhard 
L. Coenen 
H.-H. Esser, 
C. Brown 



















Onoavpoc thésauros 
papovac mamonas 
MEPINOLEOLGL peripoieomai 
mtAObTOCG ploutos 
YpHUG chréma 

Coins in the Bible and 
Theological Issues 

EKXEW ekcheo 
aitéw aiteo 
YVOVUTLETED gonypeted 
O€opal deomai 
TpooEbdXOUal proseuchomai 
TLPOOKDVEW proskyneo 
Epwtaw erotad 
Kpovm@ krouo 
évtvy XaVvO entynchano 
nuépa hémera 
papavadd. maranatha 
mapovaia parousia 

The Parousia and Eschatology 
in the NT 


J. Eichler, 

C. Brown 

C. Brown 

E. Beyreuther 
F. Selter 

F. Selter 

G. L. Archer, Jr. 

R. T. France 

H. Schonweiss 
H. Schonweiss 
H. Schonweiss 
H. Schonweiss, 
C. Brown 

H. Schonweiss, 
C. Brown 

G. T. D. Angel 
G. T. D. Angel 
C. Brown 

G. Braumann, 
C. Brown 

W. Mundle, 
C. Brown 

G. Braumann 
C. Brown 




Editors and Advisors 
Editor of the English edition . . . . Colin Brown 
General Editor of the German edition Lothar Coenen 

Greek philology, philosophy and 

classical background ._—C«y. . . Gerhard Fries 
Old Testament and cause: . . . Horst Seebass 
Qumran... ........ Reinhard Deichgraber 
Rabbinics. . . . ... . Hans Bietenhard 

New Testament philology and theology Hans Bietenhard 
Church history and historical 

theology . . .. ..... Erich Beyreuther 
Bibliographical consultant to the 

Germanedition . . . . Werner Georg Kiimmel 
Indexes . . . . . . . .  . Norman Hillyer 

Contributors to Volume 2 

In the following list the author’s work is denoted by the Greek words or sub-title 
which follow the title. 

Sverre Aalen, Dr. theol., Professor, Oslo 
Glory, Honour, doxa, timé 
Gervais T. D. Angel, M.A., M.Ed., Dean of Studies, Trinity College, Bristol 
Leaven, zymé; Prayer, Ask, Kneel, Beg, Worship, Knock, erdtad, kroud 
Gleason L. Archer, Jr., B.A., LL.B., A.M., Ph.D., B.D., Professor, Trinity Evangelical 
Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois 
Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, Wealth, Money, Coins in the Bible and Theological 
Joyce G. Baldwin, B.A., B.D., Dean of Women, Trinity College, Bristol 
Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron, chrysos, argyrion, chalkos, sidéros 
Karl-Heinz Bartels, Dr. theol., Niderbieber 
One, Once, Only, hapax, heis, monos 



Wolfgang Bauder, Cologne 
Goal, Near, Last, End, Complete, engys (part); Grow, pleonazo (part); Humility, 
Meekness, prays; Hunger, Thirst, Food, Taste, Eat, Drink, peinao 

Hartmut Beck, Karlsruhe 
Judgment, Judge, Deliver, Judgment Seat, paradidomi; Peace, eiréné (part) 

Oswald Becker, Bonn 
Gift, Pledge, Corban, arraboén 

Ulrich Becker, Dr. theol., Professor, Hanover 
Gospel, evangelion 

Ulrich Becker, Osterwald tiber Wunstorf 
Hard, Hardened, sk/éros; Lie, Hypocrite, pseudomai (part) 

Otto Betz, Dr. theol., Professor, Tiibingen 
Might, Authority, Throne, dynamis, exousia 

Erich Beyreuther, Dr. theol., Feldkirchen, Munich 
Good, Beautiful, Kind, agathos, kalos, chréstos; Joy, Rejoice, agalliaomai, euphraino, 
chairo (part); Like, Equal, isos, homoios (part); Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, 
Wealth, Money, peripoieomai 

Hans Bietenhard, Dr. theol., Professor, Steffisburg 
Greek, Hellén; Heaven, Ascend, Above, ano, ouranos; Hell, Abyss, Hades, Gehenna, 
Lower Regions, abyssos, hadés, gehenna, katoteros; Lord, Master, despotés, kyrios; 
Name, onoma (part); Paradise, paradeisos (part); People, Nation, Gentiles, Crowd, 
City, démos, ethnos, laos, ochlos, polis; Please, areskd, eudoked 

Christian Blendinger, Nuremberg 
Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand, Laying on of Hands, dexia; Might, Authority, 
Throne, thronos 

Jiirgen Blunck, Solingen 
Height, Depth, Exalt, bathos, hypsos 

Georg Braumann, Dr. theol., Billerbeck 
Hunger, Thirst, Food, Taste, Eat, Drink, esthid, pind; I Am, ego eimi (part); Present, 
Day, Maranatha, Parousia, hémera (part), parousia 

Colin Brown, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, CA 
Generation, genea (part); Gift, Pledge, Corban, korban; God, Gods, Emmanuel, 
theos (part), Emmanouél (part); Guard, Keep, Watch, phylasso (part), grégoreo, 
agrypneo; Guilt, Cause, Convict, Blame, aitia (part); Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand, 
Laying on of Hands, aristeros, eudnymos, cheir (part); Head, kephalé (part); Heaven, 
Ascend, Above, anabaino (part); Holy, Consecrate, Sanctify, Saints, Devout, hagios 
(part); Incense, Myrrh, smyrna; Light, Shine, Lamp, phos (part); Love, phileo (part); 
Magic, Sorcery, Magi, mageia (part); Man, anér (part), arsén; Marriage, Adultery, 
Bride, Bridegroom, gameo (part), hyerakmos; Miracle, Wonder, Sign, sémeion (part); 
Moses, Moysés (part); Necessity, Must, Obligation, prepd; New, kainos (part); 
Nineveh, Nineué (part); Number, chilias; Open, Close, Key, avoigd (part), kleis 
(part); Other, al/los, heteros (part); Parable, Allegory, Proverb, parabolé (part); 
Paradise, paradeisos (part); Patience, Steadfastness, Endurance, anechomai (part), 
makrothymia (part), hypomeno (part); Peace, eiréné (part); Poor, ptdchos (part); 
Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, Wealth, Money, thésauros (part), mamonas; 
Prayer, Ask, Kneel, Beg, Worship, Knock, proseuchomai (part), proskyneo (part), 
entynchano; Present, Day, Maranatha, Parousia, hémera (part), maranatha (part), 
The Parousia and Eschatology in the NT 

Frederick Fyvie Bruce, M.A., D.D., F.B.A., Emeritus Professor, University of — 
Manchester | 
Image, Idol, Imprint, Example, hypogrammos; Myth, mythos; Name, onoma (part); | 
Noah, Noe | 



Lothar Coenen, Dr. theol., Wuppertal 
Poor, penés . 
Bruce A. Demarest, M.A., Ph.D., Associate Professor, Conservative Baptist Theological 
Seminary, Denver, Colorado 
Melchizedek, Salem, Melchisedek, Salém 
James D. G. Dunn, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Lecturer, University of Nottingham 
Pentecost, Feast of, pentékosté 
Gimther Ebel, Speyer 
Persecution, Affliction, Tribulation, didkd 
Johannes Eichler, Frankfurt am Main 
Inheritance, Lot, Portion, k/éros; Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, Wealth, Money, 
Henry Leopold Ellison, B.A., B.D., Dawlish, Devon 
Levite, Leuités 
E. Margaret Embry, B.A., B.D., Lecturer, Trinity College, Bristol 
Laugh, gelad 
Hans-Helmut Esser, Dr. theol., Professor, Horstmar bei Miinster 
Grace, Spiritual Gifts, charis; Humility, Meekness, tapeinos; Law, Custom, Elements, 
ethos, nomos, stoicheia; Mercy, Compassion, eleos, oiktirmos, splanchna; Poor, 
ptochos (part) 
Ulrich Falkenroth, Dr. theol., Braunschweig 
Patience, Steadfastness, Endurance, anechomai (part), makrothymia (part), hypomend 
Michael Farmery, B.D., Bristol 
Like, Equal, homoios (part) 
Ginter Finkenrath, Burscheid-Hilgen 
Joy, Rejoice, chairé (part); Like, Equal, homoios (part) 
Otto Flender, Villigst 
Image, Idol, Imprint, Example, eikén; Layman, ididtés 
Richard Thomas France, M.A., B.D., Ph.D., Senior Lecturer in New Testament, London 
Bible College, Northwood, Middlesex 
Oil, Olive, Gethsemane, elaion; Pour, ekched 
Johannes Gess, Kassel 
Image, Idol, Imprint, Example, charaktér; Lamb, Sheep, amnos 
Jiirgen Goetzmann, Essen 
House, Build, Manage, Steward, oikos, oikodomed, oikonomia; Mind, phronésis 
Friedrich Graber, Riehen, Basel 
Heal, therapeuod (part), iaomai (part) 
Walther Giinther, Dr. theol., Stuttgart 
Godliness, Piety, sebomai; Grow, auxand; Lead Astray, Deceive, planad; Lie, 
Hypocrite, hypokrind; Love, agapao (part), philed (part); Marriage, Adultery, Bride, 
Bridegroom, gameo (part), nymphé 
Joachim Guhrt, Bentheim 
Offence, Scandal, Stumbling Block, proskomma, skandalon 
Hermann Haarbeck, Schwelm 
Lament, Sorrow, Weep, Groan, klaid, koptd, lyped (part); New, kainos (part), neos; 
Old, palai 
Hans-Christoph Hahn, Bad Boll 
Light, Shine, Lamp, lampé, lychnos, phaind, phos (part); Openness, Frankness, 
Boldness, parrhésia 
Gimther Harder, Dr. theol., Dr. jur., Professor, Berlin 
Nature, physis 


Murray, J. Harris, M.A., Ph.D., Professor, Bible College of New Zealand, Auckland, 
New Zealand 
Number, dekaté 

Roland K. Harrison, B.D., M.Th., Ph.D., D.D., Professor, Wycliffe College, Toronto 
Lame, Crippled, kyllos, cholos; Leprosy, lepros, lepra 

Colin J. Hemer, M.A., Ph.D., Librarian, Tyndale Hall, Cambridge 
Nicolaitan, Nikolaités; Number, arithmos (part), dyo, treis, tritos, eniautous treis kai 
ménas hex, pente, okt6, deka, tesserakonta, hebdomékonta 

David Hill, B.D., S.T.M., Ph.D., Senior Lecturer, University of Sheffield 
Gate, Door, pylé, pylon, thyra 

Norman Hillyer, B.D., S.Th., formerly Librarian of Tyndale House, Cambridge 
Herb, Plant, Grass, lachanon; Incense, Myrrh, libanos 

Ernst Hoffmann, Vevey 
Hope, Expectation, elpis, apokaradokia 

Otfried Hofius, Dr. theol., Professor, Paderborn 
Miracle, Wonder, Sign, sémeion (part), teras 

Bertold Klappert, Dr. theol., Gottingen 
King, Kingdom, basileia; Lord’s Supper, deipnon 

Hans Kropatschek, Lic. theol., Gottingen 
Hunger, Thirst, Food, Taste, Eat, Drink, broma 

Fritz Laubach, Dr. theol., Hamburg 
Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand, Laying on of Hands, cheir (part) 

Hans-Georg Link, Dr. theol., Cologne 
Goal, Near, Last, End, Complete, engys (part), eschatos; Guilt, Cause, Convict, 
Blame, elenchd; I Am, ego eimi (part); Lament, Sorrow, Weep, Groan, lypeo (part); 
Lie, Hypocrite, pseudomai (part); Life, bios, z6é; Love, agapao (part); Necessity, 
Must, Obligation, dei (part); opheild (part); New, kainos (part) 

Thomas McComiskey, B.A., B.D., Ph.D., Professor, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 
Deerfield, Illinois . 
Guilt, Cause, Convict, Blame, amemprtos; Israel, Jew, Hebrew, Jacob, Judah, Jak6b, 
Iouda; Judgment, Judge, Deliver, Judgment Seat, béma, katadikazo; Lament, 
Sorrow, Weep, Groan, brycho, penthed, stenazo; Light, Shine, Lamp, emphainizo; 
Marriage, Adultery, Bride, Bridegroom, koité; Nineveh, Nineué (part) 

Ralph P. Martin, M.A., Ph.D., Professor, Fuller Theological Seminary, Pasadena, 
Image, Idol, Imprint, Example, apaugasma, hypodeigma, paradeigmatizo; Mark, 
Brand, stigma, charagma, kaustériazo 

Reinhold Mayer, Dr. theol., Wiss. Rat, Tiibingen 
Israel, Jew, Hebrew, Jacob, Judah, Jsraé/ 

Robert Morgenthaler, Dr. theol., Professor, Muri bei Bern 
Generation, genea (part); Necessity, Must, Obligation, ananké 

Leon L. Morris, B.Sc., Ph.D., formerly Principal of Ridley College, Melbourne 
Gall, Poison, Wormwood, chol2, ios, apsinthos 

John Alexander Motyer, M.A., B.D., Principal of Trinity College, Bristol 
Jonah, Jonas 

Dietrich Miller, Marburg 
Grow, pleonazo (part); Heal, therapeuo (part), iaomai (part), hygiés; Height, Depth, 
Exalt, hypsod; Open, Close, Key, k/eis (part); Pharisee, Pharisaios 

Wilhelm Mundle, Lic. theol., Professor, Marburg 
Godliness, Piety, eulabeia; Hear, Obey, akoud, hypakoud; Hide, Conceal, katalypto, 
krypto; Image, Idol, Imprint, Example, eiddlon; Inheritance, Lot, Portion, meros; 

24 | 


Miracle, Wonder, Sign, thauma; Patience, Steadfastness, Endurance, kartereo; 
Present, Day, Maranatha, Parousia, maranatha (part) 
Karlfried Munzer, Gauting 
Head, kephalé (part) 
Carl Heinz Peisker, Dr. theol., Miilheim, Ruhr 
Hinder, Prevent, Forbid, enkopté, koly6; Open, Close, Key, anoigod (part); Parable, 
Allegory, Proverb, parabolé (part), paroimia 
John Pridmore, M.A., Witley 
Orphan, orphanos 
Horst Reisser, Ilten 
Marriage, Adultery, Bride, Bridegroom, moicheud 
Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, D. theol., Dr. theol., D.D., Professor, Minster 
Jesus Christ, Nazarene, Christian, /ésous, Nazarénos, Christos, Christianos 
Reinier Schippers, Dr. theol., Professor, Amsterdam 
Goal, Near, Last, End, Complete, te/os; Persecution, Tribulation, Affliction, thlipsis 
Ernst Dieter Schmitz, Wuppertal 
Knowledge, Experience, Ignorance, ginédskod; Number, arithmos (part), tessares, 
hepta, dddeka 
Johannes Schneider, D. theol., Dr. theol., Professor, Berlin 
God, Gods, Emmanuel, theos (part) 
Walter Schneider, Hanover 
Judgment, Judge, Deliver, Judgment Seat, krima 
Hans Schoénweiss, Dr. theol., Stuttgart 
Prayer, Ask, Kneel, Beg, Worship, Knock, aited, gonypeted, deomai, proseuchomai 
(part), proskyneo (part) 
Eduard Schiitz, Dr. theol., Hamburg 
Knowledge, Experience, Ignorance, aisthésis, agnoed 
Hans-Georg Schiitz, Dr. theol., Dortmund 
Guard, Keep, Watch, téred, phylasso (part); Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand, Laying 
on of Hands, epitithémi 
Helmut Schultz, Marburg 
Jerusalem, Jerousalém 
Horst Seebass, Dr. theol., Miinster 
Holy, Consecrate, Sanctify, Saints, Devout, hagios (part), hieros, hosios; Join, Cleave 
to, kollaomai; Moses, Moyseés (part) 
Friedel Selter, Rheinkamp-Repelen 
Other, allos, heteros (part); Possessions, Treasure, Mammon, Wealth, Money, 
ploutos, chréma 
Burghard Siede, Coburg 
Heaven, Ascend, Above, anabaino (part) 
Theo Sorg, Stuttgart 
Heart, kardia 
Friedrich Thiele, Kassel 
Guilt, Cause, Convict, Blame, aitia (part), enochos; Large, Small, megas, mikros 
Erich Tiedtke, Frankfurt am Main 
Hunger, Thirst, Food, Taste, Eat, Drink, geuomai; Necessity, Must, Obligation, 
dei (part), opheild (part) 
Allison A. Trites, M.A., Ph.D., Acadia Divinity College, Acadia University, Wolfville, 
Nova Scotia 
Gather, Scatter, synagd, skorpizo 
Rudolf Tuente, Bremerhaven 
Lamb, Sheep, probaton 


Herwart Vorlander, Dr. phil., Professor, Ludwigsburg 
Gift, Pledge, Corban, doron, Man, anér (part), anthropos (part) 

J. Stafford Wright, M.A., formerly Principal of Tyndale Hall, Bristol 
God, Gods, Emmanuel, theos (part), Emmanouél (part); Magic, Sorcery, Magi, 
mageia (part); Man, anthropos (part) 


Gall, Poison, Wormwood 

These words are linked by the common association of bitterness and harmfulness. 
The notions of bitterness and poison seem to have been closely connected in the 
thought of antiquity. The terms vary in the extent of the destructiveness that they 
signify, but there is nothing attractive about any of them. This leads to a common 
usage in a metaphorical sense, and all three are employed to convey thoughts of 
bitterness and the like. 

xvodn (cholé), gall, bile; idc¢ (ios), poison; dyiv@oc 

xody, 1c, dyivGoc (apsinthos), wormwood. 

CL & OT cholé appears to be cognate with the Lat. (A)olus, perhaps also with the 

Gk. chioé (green shoot, grass), and to refer in the first instance to the folour, 
of bilé"from which it comes to be used of gall or bile itself. But the impressive 
thing was clearly its bitter taste. Arndt (891) cites the tragedian Philocles: epekaleito 
Cholé dia to pikron (who “was called Cholé because of his bitterness’’). In the 
LXX the word translates a variety of Heb. words and all three meanings, “‘gall’’, 
“poison” and “‘wormwood”’ are found: (1) m®rordah, gall (Job 20:14); (2) ré’s, 
poison (Deut. 32:32; Ps. 69:21 [68:22]; cf. Matt. 27:34); (3) la‘*nadh, wormwood 
(Prov. 5:4; Lam. 3:15). On occasion the word refers to a plant (e.g. Deut. 29:18; 
32:32), but it remains uncertain which plant is meant. 

There is dispute over the derivation of ios, and whether it means “‘arrow”’ as well 
as “‘poison’’, or whether this is another word. O. Michel is emphatic that the two 
should be distinguished and connects the word for poison with the Sanskrit visa 
and the Lat. virus (TDNT III 334; cf. Liddell-Scott, 832). In secular Gk. the term is 
used of a variety of poisons, especially of the poison of snakes (Liddell-Scott note 
its use also for the venom of a mad dog). It is used for the rust on iron and also of 
other deposits, such as verdigris and the patina on bronze statues. In the LXX ios 
is used for hel’ah, rust (Ezek. 24:6, 11 f.), and hémdah, poison (Ps. 140[139]:3). It 
also occurs in the LXX of Ps. 14 [13]:3; the Epistle of Jeremy 12, 24; Prov. 23:32; 
and Lam. 3:13, where it means an arrow. 

apsinthos occurs in several secular Gk. forms. Most usual is the neut. apsinthion, 
but the fem. apsinthia is also found as well as the form apsinthos which is usually 
designated fem., but which is masc. in Rev. 8:11 (perhaps because it is the name of 
a star, astér, which is masc.). This last form is not found in the LXX or in classical 
authors. All the forms noted refer to some variety of the plant group Artemisia, of 
which several varieties occur in Palestine. All of them have a very bitter taste. 
apsinthion occurs in Aquila’s translation of Prov. 5:4; Jer. 9:15(14); 23:15. 



NT Two of the terms are used in the NT in the literal sense. cholé is used of the wine 
mixed with “‘gall’’ which was offered to Jesus as the soldiers prepared to crucify 
him (Matt. 27:34). In view of the parallel in Mk. 15:23, it seems that the word here 
refers to myrrh. ([Ed.] “According to the Talmud (San. 43a, cf. Prov. 31.6—-7) a 
man about to be executed could beg a ‘grain of incense’ (a narcotic) in wine in 
order to dull his senses and alleviate pain. Jesus refuses the sedative and heroically 
endures his sufferings to the end” [D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 353]. 
Matt. 27:48; Mk. 15:36; Lk. 23:36; and Jn. 19:29 f. relate how a soldier sub- 
sequently gave Jesus oxos, sour wine or wine vinegar, which relieved the thirst 
more effectively than water and was popular in the lower strata of society because 
it was cheaper than ordinary wine [Arndt, 577 f.]. Like Matt. 27:34, this may also 
have been seen as a fulfilment of Ps. 69:21[68:22]. Gos. Pet. 5:15 f. gives the 
impression that the cholé was actually poison [cf. the MT of Ps. 69:21] which was 
mixed with wine and given to Jesus to hasten his death before nightfall. Jesus’ 
death ensued not long afterwards.) apsinthos likewise appears to be understood 
literally in Rev. 8:11: ““The name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters 
became wormwood, and many men died of the water, because it was made bitter.”’ It 
is part of a vision of judgment on the ungodly world (see further discussion below). 
But all the terms are also used metaphorically and this is the more important 
usage for an understanding of the NT. Outside the NT cholé is used for ‘“‘bitter 
anger”, “wrath” (Liddell-Scott, 1997), but this does not appear to be the case in 
the NT. The thought is always that of bitterness. Thus Simon Peter charged Simon 
Magus with being “in the gall [cholé] of bitterness’? (Acts 8:23), when he had 
offered the apostle money for the gift of conferring the Holy Spirit by the laying 
on of hands. The thought is that to have such a complete misunderstanding of 
Christianity is not simply to be pleasantly mistaken. It is to find oneself in a 
situation which must be described in terms of bitterness. Simon had had an inkling 
of what Christianity was all about. He had welcomed the gospel and accepted bap- 
tism. It is not clear whether he himself received the laying on of hands (— Hand), 
but he was certainly numbered among the band of converts. It was an exceedingly 
bitter thing when a man of whom so much might well have been expected proved 
to be so completely out of harmony with the gospel. He was caught in a bitter 
bondage to sin. 
So it is with ios. In Romans 3 Paul is concerned with the universality of sin and 
with the way sin finds expression in what men say. ““The poison of asps”’ is under 

the lips of sinners (Rom. 3:13), a quotation Paul takes from Ps. 140:3 (LXX | 
139:4). In his catena of quotations Paul lays emphasis on what words can do, © 

referring to the throat, the tongue, the lips and the mouth (“‘feet’? and “‘eyes’’ are 

mentioned once each, vv. 15, 18, but no other part of the body). The deadliness of . 

wicked speech is stressed. James likewise finds “‘poison”’ an apt word for the un- 

tamed tongue. He thinks that such a tongue is capable of all sorts of evil and brings — 

out the harm it causes by referring to it as “‘full of deadly poison” (Jas. 3:8). It 
is apparently the same word when James castigates the rich for their “rusted” gold 

and silver and sees the “‘rust’’ as evidence against them and as something that will | 

in due course eat them up (Jas. 5:3). There is a problem in that — gold and silver 
do not rust, but James is speaking metaphorically and expressing forcefully the 
view that the treasures of the rich are tarnished and tainted and tainting. 





There is a problem in the use of apsinthos in Rev. 8:11. It is used as the name of 
a star and then it describes the water into which the star fell. Obviously the water 
became bitter and the name of the star is connected with this bitterness. The 
problem is that in Revelation the water causes death, whereas wormwood, at 
least as we understand the term, is bitter but not poisonous. The author may have 
in mind a substance other than the wormwood we know and which was genuinely 
poisonous. Or he may be employing a way of speech we have already noted in 
antiquity whereby bitterness and poison were connected. He may be reasoning 
from the bitterness of the taste to the bitterness of the results. This fits in also with 
the fact that in the OT wormwood is used of God’s punishment of the wicked, e.g. 
‘“‘Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: Behold, I will feed this people 
with wormwood, and give them poisonous water to drink” (Jer. 9:15 RSV; cf. 
23:15; Lam. 3:15, 19; the LXX does not use apsinthos, but the meaning is the same). 

: L. Morris 

— Bitter, — Dragon, Serpent, Scorpion, Sting, — Wine 

Arndt, 128 f., 379, 891; Liddell-Scott, 229, 832, 1997; O. Michel, ios, TDNT III 334 ff. 

Gate, Door 

; - mbAn (pylé), gate, door; mvAa@v (pylon), gate, gateway, 

CL In classical Greek py/é is used, mostly in the plural, to mean the gates of a town, 

although it appears in the tragedians with the meaning house-door (— thyra). 
It can be employed in a general sense to designate any entrance or opening (e.g. a 
geographical pass or straits), The gates of Hades is a fairly common periphrasis 
for the nether world, the realm of the dead (cf. Homer, J/. 5, 646; 9, 312; Od. 14, 
156; Aesch., Ag. 1291). pylon means a gateway or gate-house. 

oT In the LXX pylé translates chiefly Sa‘ar which is used to refer to: (a) the gate of 

a city, building, farm or village; (b) the area immediately inside a city-gate; 
and (c) the gate(s) of death (Job 38:17; Ps. 107:18), of Sheol (Isa. 38:10) and of 
heaven (Gen. 28:17). pylén usually translates Sa‘ar or petah: the latter denotes an 
entrance, gate or doorway. 

NT 1. Literal Meaning. In the NT pylé denotes: (a) a city-gate (Lk. 7:12; Acts 9:24; 

16:13): that Jesus suffered outside the gate (Heb. 13:12; cf. Lev. 16:17) em- 
phasizes that his suffering represents the true offering of the Day of Atonement 
and that, in his death, he is classified with law-breakers who were stoned outside: 
the camp (Lev. 24:14; Num. 15:35); (b) a gate of the temple (Acts 3:10; cf. Acts 
3:2 which uses thyra); (c) a prison gate (Acts 12:10) — thyra. 

2. Figurative Use. (a) pylé is used of the narrow gate (cf. Lk. 13:24 which, in a 
rather different context, uses thyra) through which one must pass to enter into life 
(Matt. 7:13 f.). This image was familiar in the ancient world and here indicates an 
entrance that is difficult to find and hence ignored by many. The Matthean instruc- 
tion on the two gates and two ways — and these are synonymous metaphors — is not 



so clearly eschatological in character as the corresponding verse in Lk. In the con- 
text of the well-known catechetical schema the words form an appeal to decision 
to follow Christ and face all the consequences that obedience entails. 

(b) py/é is used of the gates of Hades in Matt. 16:18. The image expresses the 
commonly-held ancient idea that the underworld was secured by strong gates 
which prevented escape and barred access to invaders. In pre-Christian Jewish 
usage the expression functions as a pars pro toto term for Hades (— Hell), i.e. the 
realm of the dead, even death itself (Isa. 38:10; Wis. 16:13; 3 Macc. 5:51; Ps. 
Sol. 16:2). It is improbable that the gates of Hades in Matt. 16 denotes the ungodly 
powers of the underworld which assail the rock (cf. TDNT VI 927), for Hades is 
not regarded as the abode of evil powers, whence they emerge to attack men. In 
the light of the Jewish background, the image is best understood as affirming that 
death, in spite of its hitherto unconquerable power, will not win control over the 
rock or, more probably, over the ekklésia erected on the rock: death will not 
vanquish the messiah who builds the church, nor the members of the messianic 
community. Por fal 

pylon denotes: (a) the gateway or porch of a house (Matt. 26:71; Lk. 16:20; 
Acts 10:17; 12:13; in Acts 12:14 it appears to mean the actual gate to be opened); 
(b) the gate of a city (Acts 14:13, perhaps temple-portals) and, in particular, the 
gates of the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21:12 f., 21, 25; 22:14). D. Hill 

| Ob pa | Ot pa (thyra), door, entrance. 

cL In classical Greek thyra denotes a house-door and occasionally the house itself, 

expressing the whole by the part. The phrase “‘at the door(s)’’ may be used to 
indicate nearness of place or time: to be “‘at the door’ of a king or other influential 
person means to be paying court to, or seeking benefit from him. The noun can also 
be used, in a general sense, for any entrance, literal or metaphorical. 

oT In the LXX thyra often translates: (a) petah which denotes an opening, dogrway 
or gate; and (b) delet which denotes a house-door, a gate, and figuratively, any 
aperture (e.g. an animal’s jaws, human lips). 

NT 1. Literal Meaning. In the NT thyra is used to mean: (a) the door of a house or 

room (Matt. 6:6; 25:10; Mk. 1:33; 2:2; 11:4; Lk. 11:7; Jn. 18:16; 20:19; 
Acts 5:9; 12:13); (b) the door of the temple (Acts 3:2; 21:30); (c) prison doors 
(Acts 5:19, 23; 12:6; 16:26 f.) which miraculously open to liberate apostles: the 
motif — which may reflect the developing use of the theme in the biographies of 
heroic figures in antiquity — affirms that the progress of the gospel cannot be 
hindered by imprisonment or bonds; (d) the entrance to a cave-tomb (Matt. 27:60; 
Mk. 16:3); (e) the opening in a stone enclosure (Jn. 10:1 f.). 

2. Figurative Use. (a) The phrase “‘before”’ or “‘at the door(s)’’ indicates nearness 
in time or place (Matt. 24:33; Mk. 13:29; Acts 5:9; Jas. 5:9). 

(b) The image of the open door denotes the provision of opportunity. This usage, 
which has parallels only in Rabbinic literature (cf. SB III 631; and TDNT III 174), is 
found in missionary contexts. God opens a door for the missionary (for the Word, 
in Col. 4:3) by giving him a field in which to work (1 Cor. 16:9; 2 Cor. 2:12; Rev. 



3:8 (?)) and he opens a door of faith to Gentiles by giving them the possibility of 
believing in Christ (Acts 14:27). 

(c) The opposite figure, the closed door (Matt. 25:10; Lk. 13:25; Rev. 3:7) 
carries the sense of judgment. The narrow door in Lk. 13:24 (cf. Matt. 7:13 f. 
where pylé is used in a different context) denotes the entrance into the eschatolo- 
gical -> kingdom of God, and the shutting of that door indicates irrevocable loss 
of an opportunity. According to Rev. 3:8, the exalted Christ alone has the authority 
to grant access to the eschatological realm. Rev. 3:20 is best understood in an 
eschatological setting: the returning Saviour seeks fellowship with the disciple in a 
festal meal; the door is opened by obedience and faith. The NT only once expressly 
refers to the door of heaven (Rev. 4:1), though the figure — reflecting an ancient 
oriental view of the world — probably underlies other passages which speak of the 
opening and closing of heaven (Lk. 4:25; Rev. 11:6). 

(d) The “I am the door” sayings in Jn. 10:7, 9. If, as seems probable, the more 
difficult reading “‘door’’ (and not “‘shepherd’’, so p> and Sah.) is the correct one 
in v. 7, and if that image is interpreted in terms of vv. 1-3, then the sense is that 
Jesus is the gate to the sheep, the door whereby the genuine shepherd approaches 
the flock. In v. 9 the image is that of the gate through which the sheep go in and 
out, i.e. that Jesus is the gate for the sheep to go into the fold, the gate leading to 
salvation and life (cf. Jn. 14:6), an idea which may be indebted to a messianic 
interpretation of Ps. 118:20. The image of Jesus as the gate to salvation appears 
early in patristic exegesis (Ign., Phil. 9:1; Hermas, Sim. 9, 12, 3 f.). It is not likely 
that v. 9 gives expression to a Johannine revelation-formula: it is rather a pointer 
to the interpretation of the figure in the opening verses. We need not suppose that 
v. 7 and v. 9 are drawn from different sources or that one is supplemental to the 
other. They are two explanations of Jesus as the gate. The only unity in the dis- 
course of Jn. 10 is christological: Jesus draws to himself every image which the 
picture of sheep, shepherd and sheepfold suggests. (For other “‘I am” sayings > I 
Am.; — also Open). D. Gill 

(a). Arndt, 366, 736; E. F. F. Bishop, ““The Door of the Sheep -— Jn. x. 7-9’, ExpT 71, 1959-60, 
307 ff.; R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, I-XII, 1966, 385 f.; O. Cullmann, Peter: 
Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1962?; J. Jeremias, thyra, TDNT III 173-80; and pylé, TDNT VI 921-28; 
P. W. Meyer, “‘A Note on John 10:1-18”, JBL 75, 1956, 232-35; J. A. T. Robinson, ‘““The Parable 
of the Good Shepherd (John 10:1-5)”, ZNW 46, 1955, 233-40 (reprinted in Twelve New Testament 
Studies, 1962, 67-75). 

(b). E. Fascher, “‘Ich bin die Tir: eine Studie zu Joh. 10, 1-18”, Deutsche Theologie 9, 1942, 34—57, 

Gather, Scatter 

[ody aovvayo (synago), gather; éxiovvdyw (episynago), gather 
together; avAAéyw (syllegé), gather up; tpvydw (trygad), 

gather in; ovotpé¢m (systrephd), gather together; G@Opoitw (athroizo), gather 

together; avva@poilaw (synathroizo), gather together; éxiavvaywyn (episynagége), 
gathering together; éza@poifopal (epathroizomai), be gathered even more. 

cL In secular Greek synago is used of bringing together, collecting or convening 
(Homer, Herodotus). It appears in a hostile sense of joining battle (/liad). It can 



refer to uniting in marriage (Aeschylus), or to concluding from premises (Aristotle). 
Sometimes it speaks of gathering together stores or crops (Xenophon). 

oT In the LXX synago-is employed about 350 times, and stands chiefly for the 

Heb. asap. It is used of collecting things, especially fruits (Exod. 23:10; Lev. 
25:3, 20; Isa. 17:5), but also ears of grain (Ruth 2:7), quails (Num. 11:32), 
money (2 Ki. 22:4; 2 Chr. 24:11), and the ashes of a red heifer (Num. 19:9). 
More importantly, the verb may refer to the gathering together of persons such as 
men, people, nations, armies (Exod. 3:16; 4:29; Num. 11:16; 21:16, 23; 2 Sam. 
10:17; 12:29). It is also used of being gathered to one’s people in Sheol (2 Kt. 
22:20; 2 Chr. 34:29[28]). Other passages speak of the gathering of the dead slain 
in battle for the purpose of burial (Jer. 9:22[21]; Ezek. 29:5). 

The verb gabas also means to gather, and is used of collecting grain (Gen. 41 :35, 
48), booty (Deut. 13:16[17]), money (2 Chr. 24:5), birds (Isa. 34:15,[16]) and 
beasts (Ezek. 39:17). In the passive it frequently refers to the assembling of persons 
(Gen. 49:2; Isa. 45:20; 48:14; 49:18; 60:4; 2 Chr. 20:4). In the intensive form 
it is used of gathering grapes (Isa. 62:9), and of assembling people (Deut. 30:3, 4; 
Jer. 31[38]:10), particularly of God recalling and assembling the exiles (Isa. 40:11; 
43:5; 56:8). Reference is made to gathering the nations for judgment (Mic. 4:12; | 
Isa. 66:18), and to Yahweh’s gathering his dispersed people, sometimes under the - 
figure of a flock (Mic. 2:12[11]; 4:6). | 

NT In the NT synago appears 59 times (24 in Matt., 5 in Mk., 6in Lk., 7 in Jn., 11 

in Acts, 5 in Rev. and once in Paul). In Matt. gathering refers to people (crowds, 
13:2; wedding guests, 22:10), or things (birds, 6:26; fish, 13:47; vultures, 24:28). 
It is contrasted with — skorpizo (scatter) in connection with the mission of the | 
church (12:30; 25:24, 26). There are frequent references to the assembling of the ~ 
religious leaders (2:4; 22:34, 41; 26:3, 57; 27:17; 27:62; 28:12), and one reference | 
to the whole Roman cohort gathering i in the Praetorium at the crucifixion (27:27). 
The nations will be gathered together at the last judgment (25:32), and the messiah | 
will gather the wheat into his barn (3:12; cf. 13:30, where the reapers are the angels — 
who are sent by the Son of man). Wherever several believers gather in Christ’s 
name, he will be in the midst (18:20). In 25:35, 38, 43 synagoé means invite in, 
receive as a guest. 

Lk. notes the gathering of the chief priests and scribes to condemn Jesus (22: 66), 
the selfish collecting of material things (12:17, 18), and the prodigal’s reckless | 
selling of his goods (15:13). On the other hand, he recognizes that the messiah will — 
gather the elect (3:17), and cites Jesus’ principle that ““he who does not gather with — 
me scatters” (11:23). 

In Jn. the fragments from the feeding of the five thousand are gathered up (6: 2. : 
13). Christian workers gather fruit unto life eternal (4:36), and Christ’s mission is | 
to gather into one the children of God scattered abroad (11:52). Fruitless branches, 
however, are gathered and burned (15:6). Jesus often gathers his disciples to 
Gethsemane (18:2), and the chief priests and Pharisees gather or convene a council | 
(11:47). ! 

In Acts there are references to the church gathering for prayer (4:31), instruction | 
(11:26), information (14:27; 15:30), consultation (15:6) and the breaking of bread | 
(20:7, 8). The Jewish religious leaders assemble (4:5); so do Herod and Pilate | 



(4:26, 27). In Pisidian Antioch practically the whole city gathers to hear the word 
of God (13:44). 

The only instance of synago in Paul occurs in 1 Cor. 5:4 where believers assemble 
to deal with a case of incest requiring excommunication (— Destroy, art. olethros 
NT 3). 

In Rev. we read of gathering for the great eschatological battle (16:14, 16; 19:19; 
20:8) and for the great supper of God (19:17). 

episynago is used in Jesus’ lament over Jerusalem (Matt. 23:37; Lk. 13:34), in 
eschatological passages speaking of the gathering of the elect (Mk. 13:27; Matt. 
24:31), and in connection with crowds gathering about Jesus (Mk. 1:33; Lk. 12:1). 
In Lk. 17:37 episynago is used in a warning: “‘As surely as vultures find the carcass, 
so surely will divine judgement come; therefore always be ready!” (Oxford Anno- 
tated Bible, 1271; — Bird nT). 

The verb sylleg6é is utilized for collecting grapes (Matt. 7:16; Lk. 6:44), good 
fish (Matt. 13:48), and of gathering up the tares for destruction (Matt. 13:28, 29, 
30, 40, 41). 

trygad appears as a stylistic variation for sy/leg6 in Lk. 6:44. In Rev. 14:18, 19 
it speaks of gathering the clusters of the vine where the wine press of God’s wrath is 
in view. 

Several other words refer to gathering together (cf. Latin congregare), but are 
used sparingly: (1) systrepho in Acts 28:3, of Paul’s gathering a bundle of sticks; 
(2) athroizo in Lk. 24:33, of the eleven apostles and others gathered together in 
Jerusalem ; (3) synathroizé in Acts 12:12, of the believers assembled in the home of 
John Mark’s mother; (4) epathroizomai in Lk. 11:29 of crowds gathered. 

The noun episynagogé in 2 Thess. 2:1 refers to the “gathering together’ of 

believers to Christ at the Parousia (cf. Latin congregatio). A. A. Trites 
| oxopnito | okopnica@ (skorpizo), scatter, disperse, distribute; 
Ohne Olaokopnicw@ (diaskorpizo), scatter, disperse, waste; 

diakt@ (dialyé), break up, dissolve, disperse; d1acneipw (diaspeiro), scatter; 
dlacno pa (diaspora), dispersion. 

CL The verb skorpizo is probably adopted from the Macedonian dialect about the 

time of Alexander. It means scatter, disperse. Examples tend to be late: Heca- 
taeus in Phrynichus (p. 218); Strabo 4, 4, 6; Pseudo-Lucian, Asinus 32; Aelianus, 
Varia Historia 13, 45; Josephus, Ant. 16, 10. diaskorpizd also means scatter, 
disperse. It appears in Aelianus, Varia Historia 13, 46; Polybius 1, 47, 4; 27, 2, 
10; and Josephus, Ant. 8, 404. diaspeiro speaks of scattering (e.g., Sophocles and 
Herodotus). In the Christian era it is sometimes used in the passive of churches 
(cf. Lucian, Toxaris 33; Iamblichus, De vita Pythagorica 35, 253; Josephus, Ant. 7, 
244; 12, 278). dialyo, which generally means break up, dissolve, can be used of the 
dispersing of a crowd (Herodotus 8, 11; Josephus, Ant. 20, 124). 

oT In the LXX diaspeir6é appears approximately 60 times, diaskorpizoé around 50, 

skorpizo about 14 and dialyé about a dozen times. These represent quite a 
number of Hebrew verbs, the chief of which are pts, ndpas and zarah. The first of 
these verbs is used generally intransitively of those who disperse themselves and are 



scattered; e.g., a people (Gen. 11:4; Num. 10:35; 1 Sam. 11:11; 14:34; Ps. 68:1 
[2]; Ezek. 46:18) or a flock (Ezek. 34:5; Zech. 13:7). Similarly, ndpas is used 
reflexively of a people dispersing themselves and being scattered (1 Sam. 13:11; 
Isa. 33:3; cf. Gen. 9:19) as well as transitively of dashing or shattering a people 
(Jer. 13:14; 51[28]: 23). 

The verb zardh means to scatter, cast loosely about, spread (e.g., Exod. 32:20; 
Num. 17:2[16:37]; Mal. 2:3). It can mean to winnow, that is, disperse by casting 
up and scattering in the wind (Isa. 30:24; Jer. 4:11; Ruth 3:2). At times it speaks 
of the routing of enemies (Jer. 15:7; Isa. 41:16; Ezek. 5:2), or the dispersing of the 
nations (Lev. 26:33; Ezek. 5:10; 6:5; 30:26). 

NI skorpizo occurs only 5 times in the NT, once in connection with the persecution 

of Christians (Jn. 16:32) and once in the pastoral allegory of Jn. 10, where the 
“‘wolf snatches the sheep and scatters them”’ (Jn. 10:12). Both Matt. and Lk. draw 
attention to the missionary principle enunciated by Jesus: “‘He who is not with me 
is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters’”’ (Matt. 12:30 = Lk. 
11:23). Jesus here takes the theme of gathering and scattering whichis applied in 
the OT to the people of God (Isa. 40:11; 49:6; Ezek. 34:13, 16) and applies it to 
his own significance in the end-time. The comparable inverted form of the saying, 
“he that is not against us is for us’? (Mk. 9:40; Lk. 9:50) occurs in the context of 
casting out demons. “‘But they are not contradictory, if the one was spoken to the 
indifferent about themselves, and the other to the disciples about someone else”’ 
(A. H. McNeile, The Gospel according to St. Matthew, 1915, 177; cf. D. Hill, The 
Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 217). Paul uses the verb once in a quotation from Ps. 
112:9 when he is advocating charity and benevolence (2 Cor. 9:9). 

diaskorpizo (9 times in NT) refers on occasion to the squandering of resources, 
either one’s own or those entrusted to him by another (Lk. 15:13; 16:1). The verb 
also highlights the persecution and dispersion of the messianic community, for the 
“‘shepherd”’ will be smitten and the “‘sheep” scattered (Mk. 14:27; Matt. 26:31; 
cf. Zech. 13:7). Luke uses it in the Magnificat to express Mary’s confidence in 
God’s ability to turn tables on the lofty (Lk. 1:51). A striking instance of the 
scattering of the proud appears in the case of Judas the Galilean, whose followers 
are dispersed when he is discredited as a messianic pretender (Acts 5:37). Matthew 
twice contrasts “‘scattering’” and “‘gathering’”’ in an argumentum ad hominem in- 
volving sowing and reaping (Matt. 25:24, 26). John sees the mission of Jesus 
embracing Gentiles as well as Jews, in order that he might “‘gather into one the 
children of God who were scattered abroad” (Jn. 11:52). 

The verb dialy6 appears only once in the NT when Gamaliel draws attention to 
the futility of the revolt led by Theudas and the subsequent dispersal of his followers 
(Acts 5:36). 

The verb diaspeiro is used 3 times of the dispersion of the early Christians 
through persecution (Acts 8:1; 11:19). The beneficent result of such circumstances 
was the proclamation of the Christian message in new areas; the persecution paved 
the way for missionary advance. It is not surprising, then, to find an epistle directed 
to ““God’s elect, strangers in the world, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, 
Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia” (1 Pet. 1:1). The word diaspora also appears 
in Jas. 1:1 of “the Twelve Tribes dispersed throughout the world’, while the 



customary usage of the LXX is maintained in Jn. 7:35, where it is atechnical term for 
the “‘dispersion of the Jews among the Gentiles” (cf. Deut. 30:4; Ps. 146[147]:2). 
A. A. Trites 

—> Foreign, —> Seed, Harvest 

(a). Arndt, 187, 789 f.;S. W. Baron, A Social and Religious History of the Jews, I-XV, 1952-732; 
BDB, 62 f., 867 f.; J. Bright, A History of Israel, 19727; M. Grant, The Jews in the Roman World, 
1973; T. Nicol, ““Dispersion’’, International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, ed. J. Orr, II 855-59; 
K. L. Schmidt, diaspora, TDNT II 98-104; W. L. Walker, ‘‘Gather’’, International Standard Bible 
Encyclopaedia, WI 1177f. On the dispersion of the Jews generally see W. Forster, Palestinian 
Judaism in New Testament Times, 1964; F. C. Grant, Ancient Judaism and the New Testament, 
1960; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, III, 1975; Moore, Judaism, I-II1; T. Reinach, “‘Dias- 
pora”’, JE IV 559-74; S. Safrai, M. Stern, D. Flusser and W. C. van Unnik, eds., The Jewish 
People in the First Century, I, 1974; J. A. Sanders, “‘Dispersion’”’, /DB I 854 ff.; Schiirer, J-II; 
F. Zweig, “Israel and the Diaspora’’, Judaism 7, 1958, 147—SO. 

(b). A. Causse, Les Dispersés d’Israél, 1929; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain, 1914; K. G. 
Kuhn, “Die inneren Griinde der jiidischen Ausbreitung”, Deutsche Theologie 2, 1935, 9-17; K. 
Miller, ed., Die Aktion Jesu und die Reaktion der Kirche, 1972. 


; veved (genea), generation, family, clan, race, age; 
yeveadoyia (genealogia), genealogy, family tree; 
yeveadoyém (genealoged), trace descent; ayeveaddyytoc (agenealogétos), without 

CL & OT genea, derived from the root gen-, means birth, also (noble) descent, then 

descendants, family, race (i.e., those bound together by a common origin). 
Those born at the same time constitute a generation (“three generations of men are 
a hundred years’’, Hdt. 2, 142). Associated with this is the meaning: the body of 
one’s contemporaries, an age. In the LXX genea is almost always the translation of 
dor and means generation, in which case the whole history of Israel is often re- 
garded as a work of God extending through many generations (“from generation 
to generation’, “from all generations’). 

The noun genos, formed from the same stem and related to the verb ginomai 
(— Birth), is frequently translated by race (except where it corresponds to the 
Hebrew min = “kind” in Gen. 1). Both in the LXX and in the NT its prime mean- 
ing is nation, people or tribe, and therefore is discussed under — people. 

NT genea occurs 43 times in the NT, mainly in the Gospels and Acts; on the other 
hand its compounds are found only rarely: genealogeomai occurs once, genea- 
logia twice, agenealogétos once. 

1. The meaning of the word in the NT comes from the idea of historical se- 
quence referred to above. It occurs 4 times in Matt. 1:17, in the context of Christ’s 
genealogy. The remote past is denoted — as in OT and late Jewish usage — by the 
phrase apo geneon, from (all) generations (Col. 1:26; Acts 15:21). Similarly the 
unending future is expressed by eis geneas kai geneas, “‘to all generations”’ (lit. “to 
generations and generations”) (Lk. 1:50; 1:48; Eph. 3:21). Acts 13:36 refers to 
David’s generation, and Acts 14:16; Eph. 3:5 to earlier generations. genealogia 



occurs in the NT only in 1 Tim. 1:4 and Titus 3:9, and alludes specifically to the 
practice of searching back through one’s family tree in order to establish ancestry. 
On any straightforward exegesis, those doing this can only have been Jews who, 
starting out from OT and other genealogies, were propagating all kinds of “Jewish 
myths’’, quite probably pre-Christian gnostic speculations. But it is also possible 
that the Ebionites were using similar arguments to attack the doctrine of the 
miraculous birth of Jesus which was circulating in the Christian church (cf. the 
genealogies in Matt. 1 and Lk. 3). (On the genealogies of Jesus — Son.) 

In Gen. 14 - Melchizedek is introduced without any such statement as is usual 
elsewhere in the OT regarding a person’s ancestry (“‘son of ...’’). For that reason 
he is described in Heb. 7:3 as agenealogétos, and in 7:6 as mé genealogoumenos, 1.€. 
he can have had no natural ancestry like others. The author of Heb. is certainly 
not attempting to call in question indirectly the true humanity of Jesus. For him 
this is bound up with his true divinity. 

2. Almost all the remaining NT genea-passages speak of ‘‘this generation” (hé 
genea hauté). This construction in Greek, with the demonstrative regularly follow- 
ing its noun, is clearly the equivalent of haddér hazzeh. It is interesting that the OT 
does not know this stereotyped phrase in its NT sense, though Ps. 12:7 comes very 
Close to it (cf. Gen. 7:1; Exod. 1:6; Deut. 1:35). In these passages the demonstra- 
tive has a pejorative character, 1.€. the reference is to a class of people who in this 
world stand over against the children of light and are further described as faithless 
(Mk. 9:19), faithless and perverse (Matt. 17:17), adulterous (Mk. 8:38), evil and 
adulterous (Matt. 12:39), evil (Lk. 11:29), crooked (Acts 2:40), crooked and 
perverse (Phil. 2:15). The Song of Moses in Deut. 32 (vv. 5 and 20) seems here to 
have had a certain influence on the wording. In these passages the temporal, 
“genealogical” element is completely absent. The emphasis lies entirely on the sin- 
fulness of this class, this type of people. 

3. In Jesus’ discourse about the future the phrase clearly bears this second 
meaning: Mk. 13:30; Matt. 24:34; Lk. 21:32. Indeed, in every other NT passage 
where hauté forms part of this phrase, it has the same pejorative character. But 
since the discourse refers to this genea “‘passing away’’, the temporal, genealogical 
element is also present, though of secondary importance. By using this phrase, 
Jesus appears to set a time limit for certain events, and the question then is: Which 
events are they? There are various conflicting views. 

(a) Only a comprehensive analysis of Mk. 13 and its parallels can clarify the 
situation, but the following brief observations may be made. Mk. 13:1—36 with its 
600 words is the most extensive complete section within the basic synoptic tradition 
(‘triplex traditio marciana”’, de Solages). Like Mk. 4, it is an important piece of 
early Christian didaché (teaching); indeed the Gospel of Mk. as a whole bears the 
marks not of kérygma (proclamation) but of didaché. (Note the use in Mk. of the 
word-group didaskein, didaché,; didaskalos; —> teaching, and in particular Mk. 1:22, 
27; 4:1, 2; 11:18; 12:38.) In Mk. 13:1-4 a purely didactic situation is outlined as 
the Sitz im Leben. Attempts have been made, on the basis of literary criticism, to 
exclude a greater or lesser portion of Mk. 13:1—36 as being of non-Marcan origin. 
Such attempts have failed, however, since both in terms of word-frequency and of 
grammar the whole passage is thoroughly Marcan in character. It is very significant 
that a succession of recent investigators have made their incisions at totally different 



places. To call the whole chapter (or part of it) ““apocalyptic’’ can only be mislead- 
ing, for there is a complete absence of apocalyptic features: history written as 
prophecy, descriptions of heaven, astronomical speculations, symbolism based on 
animals or colours or numbers, visions, heavenly messages brought by angels, 
pseudonymity, precise expressions of time, portrayal of conditions in heaven or 
hell. Moreover, where isolated ideas or phrases are borrowed from apocalyptic, 
these are re-moulded in typically non-apocalyptic, indeed anti-apocalyptic fashion. 
The imperatives which dominate the whole chapter are essentially non-apocalyptic. 
Many modern form-critics see the passage as a hortatory discourse of early 
Christian didaché which originated as separate elements but was put together in its 
present form by the author and by the church tradition available to him. In the 
context of the whole gospel it is clearly presented as a farewell discourse. This type 
of address occurs frequently in the literature of pre-Christian times and of late 
Judaism, as well as in the rest of the NT. Its essential and recurring features are 
warnings of future apostasy and persecution, the promise of coming redemption 
and the exhortation to watchfulness. 

(b) It is precisely these features that are present in Mk. 13 and its parallels, 
coupled with a tradition according to which Jesus announces the coming destruc- 
tion of —> Jerusalem (1-4; 14-20). The Lucan parallel to Mk. 13:14—20 (Lk. 21:20- 
24) shows clearly enough how Lk. understood Mk.’s cryptic language, but as Dodd, 
Michaelis and others have shown, this by no means implies that Lk. was prophesy- 
ing after the event. Such a conclusion is suggested only by a theological inter- 
pretation, which sees Jerusalem as the embodiment of the people of Israel, whose 
hearts God had hardened in judgment, whilst the “times of the Gentiles” (kairoi 
ethnon), in the sense of the “‘times when salvation comes to the Gentiles’, had 
already begun (cf. Acts 28:24-28; Rom. 11:25, 26). These times cannot be calcu- 
lated in advance (Lk. 17:20 f.). But they will soon come to an end with the coming 
of the —- kingdom of God, the — Son of man, and the — Day of the Lord. (Lk. 
18:8 and 21: 34-36 suggest that Lk. expected that the end may come at any moment 
within his own lifetime.) Whilst in Lk. the “‘end”’ of Jerusalem and the “end of the 
world” are clearly separated from one another, Matt. has closely linked the two 
together. The sentence pronounced upon Jerusalem was available both to him and 
to Lk. in the logia source (Matt. 23:37-39 = Lk. 13:34, 35) and in the special 
material (Matt. 22:7; Lk. 19:41-44; 23:28-32). This close association in Matt. 1s 
shown by the form of the question in 24:3, and with particular clarity by the 
expression “immediately” in 24:29 (eutheds), and in general by the entirely new 
version of the discourse which he gives. The expression synteleisthai in Mk. 13:4 
is not by any means a technical term of apocalyptic as has been asserted (Acts 
21:27 being quoted in support!), and the adverbial phrase of time in Mk. 13:24 
(“but in those days after that tribulation’’) is linguistically semitic and ambiguous, 
telling us very little. Mk. occupies, so to speak, a middle position, as indeed he does 
in textual matters throughout. (Cf. de Solages’ conclusive arguments; see biblio- 
graphy below.) 

Only by such considerations can the word in Mk. 13:30 and its parallels be 
explained. In Matt. it has the sense of this generation, and according to the first 
evangelist, Jesus expected the end of this age (— Time, art. aidn) to occur in 
connection with the judgment on Jerusalem at the end of that first generation (see 



Mk. 9:1 and Matt. 16:18). But in view of the happenings of A.p. 70 and their 
theological relation to the preaching of Paul, Lk. understood genea as a class of 
people, perhaps even as Israel. Since the special material and the logia source do 
not link the judgment on Jerusalem and the end of the world, and since the text 
of Mk. 13 in general (especially vv. 13 and 24) has an indefinite and open ring, we 
must conclude that in this regard Jesus expressed himself in an ambiguous manner. 
The evangelists, however, were not copyists, but witnesses who, led by the Spirit, 
testified to the word they had heard and brought it to bear upon their own times. 
Acts 8:33 is a literal rendering of Isa. 53:8. The passage is interpreted christo- 
logically, but the precise interpretation presents difficulties. It is fairly certain that 
“‘seneration” is used in its genealogical sense. However, E. Haenchen thinks that 
it may be understood as referring to “‘spiritual descendants’’. The sentence would 
then mean: ““The number of his disciples will grow incalculably, because he has 
become the Exalted” (The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 312). R. Morgenthaler 

4. The events referred to in Mk. 13:30 par. Matt. 24:34 and Lk. 21:32 have 
generally been taken to refer to cosmic events associated with the second coming 
of Christ. (For the survey of views see G. R. Beasley-Murray, Jesus and the Future: 
An Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological Discourse, Mark 13, with 
Special Reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory, 1954; cf. the same author’s A 
Commentary on Mark Thirteen, 1957.) But if these events were expected within 
the first generation of Christians (and “generation” is the most probable transla- 
tion of genea), either Jesus or the evangelists were mistaken. The failure of events 
to materialize has been put down to a postponement of the catastrophe and to a 
telescoping of events, comparable with seeing a mountain range at a distance. The 
perspective makes the mountains appear to stand close together, and indeed rela- 
tively speaking they do stand close together. However, there is an alternative inter- 
pretation of the passage which points out that insufficient attention has been paid 
to the prophetic language of the passage as a whole. 

The imagery of cosmic phenomena is used in the OT to describe this-worldly 
events and, in particular, historical acts of judgment. The following passages are 
significant, not least because of their affinities with the present context: Isa. 13:10 
(predicting doom on Babylon); Isa. 34:4 (referring to “all the nations’, but 
especially to Edom); Ezek. 32:7 (concerning Egypt); Amos 8:9 (the Northern 
Kingdom of Israel); Joel 2:10 (Judah). The cosmic imagery draws attention to the 
divine dimension of the event in which the judgment of God is enacted. The use of 
Joel 2: 28-32 in Acts 2:15—21 provides an instance of the way in which such pro- 
phetic cosmic imagery is applied to historical events in the present (cf. also Lk. 
10:18; Jn. 12:31; 1 Thess. 4:16; 2 Pet. 3:10 ff.; Rev. 6:12-17; 18:1). Other OT 
passages relevant to the interpretation of the present context are Isa. 19:1; 27:13; 
Dn. 7:13; Deut. 30:4; Zech. 2:6; 12:10-14; Mal. 3:1. In view of this, Mk. 13:24— 
30 may be interpreted as a prophecy of judgment on Israel in which the — Son of 
man will be vindicated. Such a judgment took place with the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, the desecration of the -- Temple and the scattering of Israel — all of which 
happened within the lifetime of “‘this generation.” The disintegration of Israel as 
the people of God coincides with the inauguration of the — kingdom of the Son of 
man. Such an interpretation fits the preceding discourse and the introductory 



remarks of the disciples (Mk. 13:1 ff. par.). It would not, however, pre-empt the 
—> judgment of mankind in general. (See further J. Marcellus Kik, Matthew XXIV: 
An Exposition, 1948; R. T. France, Jesus and the Old Testament, 1971, 227-39.) 
—> Present: The Parousia and Eschatology in the NT C. Brown 

(a). E. L. Abel, “The Genealogies of Jesus Ho cuRIsTos”’, NTS 20, 1973-74, 203-10; G. R. Beasley- 
Murray, Jesus and the Future: An Examination of the Criticism of the Eschatological Discourse, 
Mark 13, with Special Reference to the Little Apocalypse Theory, 1954; and A Commentary on 
Mark Thirteen, 1957; F. Biichsel, genea etc., TDNT I 662-65; C. H. Dodd, “‘The Fall of Jerusalem 
and the ‘Abomination of Desolation’ ’’, Journal of Roman Studies, 1947, reprinted in More New 
Testament Studies, 1968, 69-83; L. Gaston, No Stone on Another: Studies in the Significance of the 
Fall of Jerusalem in the Synoptic Gospels, 1970; T. F. Glasson, His Appearing and His Kingdom: 
The Christian Hope in the Light of its History, 1953; M.D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical 
Genealogies: With Special Reference to the Setting of Genealogies of Jesus, Society for New 
Testament Studies Monograph Series 8, 1969; W. Kelber, The Kingdom in Mark: A New Place and 
a New Time, 1974; J. M. Kik, Matthew XXIV: An Exposition, 1948, reissued in An Eschatology 
of Victory, 1971; W. G. Kiimmel, Promise and Fulfilment: The Eschatological Message of Jesus, 
19617; A. L. Moore, The Parousia in the New Testament, 1966; G. Neville, The Advent Hope: A 
Study of the Content of Mark XIII, 1961; B. de Solages, A Greek Synopsis of the Gospels, 1959; 
W. Strawson, Jesus and the Future Life: A Study in the Synoptic Gospels, 1959; R. R. Wilson, ‘““The 
Old Testament Genealogies in Recent Research”, JBL 94, 1975, 169-89. 

(b). G. Bolsinger, ‘“Die Ahnenreihe Christi nach Matthaus und Lukas’, Buk 12, 1957, 112 ff.; 
F. Busch, Zum Verstandnis der synoptischen Eschatologie, Mk. 13 neu untersucht, 1938; J. Conrad, 
Die junge Generation im Alten Testament, AzTh 1/40, 1970; E. Grasser, Das Problem der Parusiever- 
zégerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte, 1957; G. Harder, ‘““Das 
eschatologische Geschichtsbild der sogenannten kleine Apokalypse Mk. 13”, ThV, 1952, 71 ff.; 
M. Meinertz, “‘ “Dieses Geschlecht’ im Neuen Testament”, BZ 1, 1957, 283 ff.; A. Pfleiderer, ““Uber 
die Komposition der eschatologischen Rede Mt. 24:4 ff.”, Jahrbuch fiir Deutsche Theologie, 1868; 
A. Piganiol, Observation sur la Date del’ Apocalypse synoptique, 1924; E. des Places, “‘Ipsius enim 
genus sumus (Act. 17, 28)’, Biblica 43, 1962, 388 ff.; G. C. B. Pinjer, ‘“Die Wiederkunftsreden 
Jesu”, ZWT 2, 1878, 153-208; A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus, 1929, 554; E. F. Strémer, 
Die grosse Zukunftsrede des Herrn nach Matthaus, 24, 1922. 

Gift, Pledge, Corban 

A gift (déron and related words) is qualified by the reason for which it is given and 
the end which it is intended to serve. Its characteristic feature is not the act of 
giving (diddmi), but the intention behind it. This can be to fulfil an obligation or 
cancel a debt. But a gift may also be a present given without ulterior motive. 
When man gives something to God, his gift has the character of an offering (— 
Sacrifice). But in the NT the theological emphasis lies, significantly, on the idea of 
gift as a present from God to man, In this connection — Jesus Christ and his 
redeeming work appear as the one great fundamental gift of God. There is also the 
gift of the Holy — Spirit with his various charismata (— Grace). The former gives 
man union and — fellowship with Christ; the latter equips him for service arising 
from this fellowship. The arrabon, first instalment, earnest, is a more specific idea, 
denoting the pledge which guarantees fulfilment (— Fullness) of the — promise. 

re? 7. | appapayv (arrabén), first instalment, down payment, 
| appapov | deposit, pledge, earnest. 

CL & oT The Gk. word arrabon (borrowed from the Semitic, cf. Heb. ‘érabén) is a 
legal concept from the language of business and trade. It is found only rarely 


(Isaeus, Aristotle and later grammarians such as Suidas) and means: (1) an instal- 
ment, with which a man secures a legal claim upon a thing as yet unpaid for; (2) an 
earnest, an advance payment, by which a contract becomes valid in law; (3) in one 
passage (Gen. 38:17 ff.) a pledge. In each case it is a matter of payment by which 
the person concerned undertakes to give further payment to the recipient (Arndt, 
109). A metaphorical use is also possible (e.g. skilfulness as an arrabén of life, 
Antiphon, Frag. 123, 6). 

NT In all three passages where the word occurs in the NT the Holy — Spirit is 
referred to. 

1. Eph. 1:14 interprets the other two passages: the Spirit as the present earnest 
of our future — inheritance guarantees our complete, final salvation, i.e. eternal 
communion with God. This statement, as also 2 Cor. 1:22, is probably associated 
with — baptism (— Seal). In the sealing of the believer, the Holy Spirit is given to 
the human — heart (kardia) as an earnest. The future reality represented by the 
earnest of the Spirit appears in 2 Cor. 5:5 as the “house’’ expected from heaven, 
which will one day replace the present “‘tent”’, our earthly body. Thus in Paul the 
Spirit is not the earnest of a soul freed from its earthly body, but of a new existence 
in an immortal body (heavenly garment; — Clothe). 

2. Similarly Rom. 8:23 speaks of “‘the first fruits [aparché] of the Spirit”. Here 
the genitive “of the Spirit’? explains the meaning of aparché (gift of firstfruits; 
—> Sacrifice; cf. 2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5). E. Schweizer holds that aparché, like arrabon, 
does not mean a preliminary participation in the Spirit. The present reality of the 
Spirit is a sign and pledge of that which is to come (7TDNT VI 422). In Polycarp 
8:1 Jesus Christ is referred to as arrabon. But the NT avoids this and speaks of 
him only as engyos (surety; — Covenant). 

In all three NT passages, however, the arrabén should not be understood to 
imply that, in giving the earnest of the Spirit, God is legally our debtor. Even the 
instalment of the Spirit remains a free, undeserved gift of God to men. 

O. Becker 

| 0@ pov (doron), gift, present; dwped (dorea), gift; dwpedv 
Es (dorean), as a present, gratis; dwpéopal (doreomai), give, 
present; d@pnyua (doréma), present; did@ (didomi), give, grant; dda (doma), 
gift; =poapopa (prosphora), presentation, offering, gift. | 

| O@ pov 

CL doron (found already in Mycenean Greek) is from the same root as didomi. 

metadidomi means to give a share in; dosis and doma, gift, are infrequent. The 
derivative vb. doreomai, present, is used in the mid. (originally also in the act.). 
Corresponding to it are the Attic noun doréma present, and dorea, present, gift, 
bestowal. The acc. of the latter, dérean, is used adverbially in the sense of gratis, 
undeservedly, as a present. 

In extra-Biblical use, doron (similarly dorea) denotes especially a complimentary 
gift. As a gift from the gods (e.g. in Homer), it can also mean dispensation. Brought 
by men to the gods, doron denotes a consecrated gift. It can also mean tax, tribute, 
or bribe. 



oT 1. The LXX uses doron to render several Hebrew words with the following 

principal meanings: (a) generally, a present such as men give to one another 
(Gen. 24:53; 32:13, 18 f. and passim); (b) tribute (Jdg. 3:15, 17f. and passim; 
Jdg. 5:19 = booty); (c) bribe (Exod. 23:7 f.; Deut. 16:19; 27:25; Ps. 15:5 and 
passim; Deut. 10:17 and passim; negatively when the reference is to God; (d) most 
frequent is the cultic meaning offering, Heb. gorbdn, especially in Lev. and Num. 
(Lev. 1:2 f., 10, 14; 2:1, 4 ff. etc.; Num. 5:15; 6:14, 21 etc.; also for minhdh in Gen. 
4:4; for néder in Deut. 12:11 and passim), often with the vb. prospherd, to bring, 
to offer (prosphora, offering; the act of offering); (e) a gift brought to God in 
recognition of his greatness and power (by kings, Pss. 68:30; 72:10; by peoples, 
Isa. 18:7, cf. Ps. 68:32 etc.); (f) a gift from God (Gen. 30:20). 

doron rarely appears in late Jewish literature. ddrema appears in the LXX only 
once, in the Apocrypha (Sir. 31[34]:18). 

2. ddreomai, rare in the LXX, stands for 3 Hebrew verbs having the sense of 
‘giving’: (a) by men to one another (ndtan, Est. 8:1; also Prov. 4:2); (b) by man 
to God (gorban, Lev. 7:15 [LXX v. 5]); (c) by God to men (zabad, Gen. 30:20). 
Much more frequent is didomi, which as a rule renders the Hebrew naan, to give 
(likewise used in this threefold way), but also a large number of other verbs. 

3. ddrea occurs frequently in late Jewish literature, but in the canonical books 
always in the adverbial acc. form ddrean. It corresponds in meaning to the Heb. 
term hinnam: (a) for nothing (without payment, Exod. 21:2, 11; Num. 11:5; 2 
Sam. 24:24 and passim; without recompense, Gen. 29:15; Jer. 22:13 and passim); 
(b) without cause (1 Sam. 19:5; 25:31; Ps. 35:7 and passim); (c) in vain (Ezek. 
6:10; Mal. 1:10). 

NT 1. (a) In the NT doron (19 times) stands once for the human gift (Rev. 11:10; 

cf. Matt. 7:11 par. Lk. 11:13 doma) and once for the divine gift (Eph. 2:8). For 
the latter dérea is found more often (e.g. Jn. 4:10; Acts 2:38; Rom. 5:15, 17; 2 Cor. 
9:15; Eph. 4:7; Heb. 6:4). In Rom. 5:16 and Jas. 1:17 doréma is used (in the latter 
passage together with dosis). For the rest doron is the offering (e.g. Matt. 5:23 f.; 
23:18 f.; Mk. 7:11; Lk. 21:1-4; Heb. 5:1; 8:3 f.; 9:9; 11:4; while in Matt. 2:11 
it is the gift of adoration). The occasional combination with prosphero to bring, 
offer, underlines the connection with the OT sacrifice system. In this sense doron 
is parallel to thysia, offering (— Sacrifice), and prosphora, offering. 

(b) didomi (416 times in the NT) is found in all the nuances of presenting, giving, 
bestowing, granting, etc., both (4) among men (Matt. 7:lla; Acts 20:35 and 
passim; also doreomai Mk. 15:45; and metadidodmi Lk. 3:11; Rom. 1:11; 12:8; 
Eph. 4:28; 1 Thess. 2:8); and (ii) by God (Matt. 7:11b; 1 Jn. 4:13; Rev. 2:7, 17; 
cf. also 3:21 and passim; doreomai 2 Pet. 1:3). The meaning to offer also occurs 
(Lk. 2:24), while a metaphorical meaning is found in Mk. 10:37; Acts 13:20 and 

(c) dorean (8 times in the NT) has the threefold meaning common in the OT: 
(i) gratis, gratuitously, for nothing (Matt. 10:8; Rom. 3:24; 2 Cor. 11:7; 2 Thess. 
3:8; Rev. 21:6; 22:17); (i) without cause (Jn. 15:25, OT quotation from Pss. 
35:19; 69:4); (iii) in vain (Gal. 2:21). 

2. doron and didomi as cultic terms (— Sacrifice) are found in contexts where the 
subject-matter is the regular offering (Matt. 5:23 f.; 8:4; Lk. 2:24; in Lk. 21:1, 4 



with the meaning money-offering). There are also other passages (Mk. 7:11; Matt. 
15:5) which emphasize, in line with OT prophecy, that offerings (even in a meta- 
phorical sense) are no substitute for obedience to God’s will (cf. Isa. 1:10-17; 
Mic. 6:6-8; also Deut. 10:12 f.). The problem of the sacrificial cult is squarely 
faced in the Epistle to the Hebrews (5:1 ff.; 8:3 f. and passim), where a contrast 
is drawn between the merely temporary OT system with its offerings (ddron and 
thysia) made by men, and the final, once-for-all offering of Christ (prosphora and 
thysia) (7:26-28; 9:25 ff.; 10:10 ff. and passim; cf. also Eph. 5:2). 

3. This opens up the NT teaching that God is a God who gives, and that his 
giving is seen supremely in the redeeming work of Christ (~ Redemption). 

(a) There are general statements to the effect that God “gave” his > Son (Jn. 
3:16) and passages where Jesus as such is referred to as “‘the gift of God’’ (dérea, 
Jn. 4:10). The statement that Christ has “given” himself for us, for our sins, 
appears as a credal formula in Gal. 1:4; 1 Tim. 2:6 (for literature on NT credal 
formulae — Confess). 

(b) In addition there are references which point particularly to Jesus’ death on 
the cross: Jesus gave his life as a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45 par.; cf. Jn. 10:15b). 
Likewise Lk.’s account of the Last Supper (22:19) speaks of Christ’s body ‘‘given 
for you.” 

(c) This gives to Christians the assurance of belonging for ever to the — church 
of Christ. Jn. in particular sees the basis for this assurance in the fact that the 
church has been given to Christ by God (10:28 f.; cf. 17:6 ff.). Moreover, to 
belong to this church means to share in the gift of eternal — life (10:28; cf. 
3215 ft Le 2g 17s 3): 

(d) In Paul the gift-motif is incorporated into his preaching of the free and un- 
merited grace of God (N.B. dorean, Rom. 3:24) which declares the sinner justified 
“without works’ (— Righteousness; — Grace; — Reconciliation). dérea or doréma — 
(Rom. 5:15-17; 2 Cor. 9:15), taken together with charisma, sums up the whole of 
God’s saving work of pardon, justification and reconciliation (cf. also Eph. 2:8). | 

(e) God is praised as the giver of all good gifts in general (Jas. 1:17; cf. Matt. 
7:11b etc.). All who call upon him for his gifts can do so with the utmost confidence — 
(Matt. 7:7). Yet the one great gift which he gives to his church is his — Spirit _ 
(2 Cor. 1:22; 5:5; 1 Thess. 4:8; Lk. 11:13; cf. Acts 2:38; 8:17; 10:47; 19:6; also | 
the OT quotations in Acts 2:17 f. [Joel 2:28 ff.] and Heb. 8:10 [Jer. 31:33]). In the © 
church, all other ‘‘gifts”’ (usually charisma, —> Grace) are the results of this one gift — 
(Rom. 12:3 ff.; 1 Cor. 12:1 ff.; cf. also 2 Pet. 1:3). In the letters of Rev. 2 and 3 the | 
gift of eternal life i 1S promised to him who “overcomes” trial and temptation. : 

(f) doma, gift, occurs only at Matt. 7:11 (cf. Lk. 4:6); Eph. 4:8 (on the inter- . 
pretation of this verse — Heaven, art. anabaino); and Phil. 4:17. 

4. The man who has received Christ as a free gift, responds to the twofold 
— commandment (Matt. 22:37-40) by a twofold giving: 

(a) He gives himself to God (cf. 2 Cor. 8:5 and similar passages). According to | 
the NT, this is the only legitimate “‘offering’”’ which can and should be brought by © 
men to God (Rom. 12:1 and passim). It includes the “sacrifices” of word and deed | 
(Heb. 13:15 f.; 1 Pet. 2:5), and may mean even the laying down of one’s life for 
Christ (Phil. 2: 17). i 



(b) He gives himself to other men, as required by the “new commandment”’ 
(Jn. 13:34). This shows itself in the first instance within the church, where the 
giving should be a reflection of God’s giving. To give simply and without ulterior 
motives (Rom. 12:8) is the way in which God gives (Jas. 1:5). See also 2 Cor. 9:7 
on God’s love for the cheerful giver (dotés, found only here in the NT); Mk. 12:41- 
44 = Lk. 21:1—-4 (Jesus’ verdict on the poor widow’s gift); and the precepts of the 
Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:42; cf. Lk. 6:38). But the Christian, having first 
received the gift of the gospel, is concerned to pass this gift on to others. This is 
giving in its profoundest sense (Rom. 1:11; 1 Thess. 2:8; cf. Matt. 10:8b). 

H. Vorlander 

= Kopfav (korban), corban, gift; KopBavac (korbanas), 
| xoppav temple treasury. 

oT The Gk, word korban is transliterated from the Heb. gorban and denotes a gift 

consecrated to God (Lev. 1:2; 22:27; 23:14; Num. 7:25; Ezek. 20:28; 40:43). 
Many scholars think that these passages reflect the outlook of post-exilic Judaism. 
The offerings mentioned include both sacrifices and gifts. 

Later Judaism used the word in a more technical sense. Josephus mentions 
those who “‘dedicate themselves to God, as a corban, which denotes what the 
Greeks call a gift” (Ant. 4, 73; cf. Ap. 1, 167). Release from the vow could be 
obtained by payment of an appropriate sum. Rab. practice was formulated in the 
Mishnah in the tractate on Nedarim (Vows), see especially sections 1, 3, 8, 9, 11 and 
the developments in the Babylonian Talmud (Ned. 1:4; 2:2; and 3:2). The 
rabbis appear to be divided over the extent to which a gift vowed as corban (also 
later termed kénam) was binding. The Mishnah indicates that most of them held 
that duty to one’s parents constituted grounds for release from a gift vowed to God. 
(Ned. 9:1). The Babylonian Talmud attributed this view to the school of Shammai, 
whereas that of Hillel took the more rigorist view. ‘“‘If anyone expressly lays such a 
corban on his relatives, then they are bound by it and cannot receive anything 
from him that is covered by the corban’’ (Ned. 3:2). The context of these pro- 
nouncements show that the question was not so much the handing over of certain 
things to God but their withdrawal from use by specified persons. 

NT The rigorist position which permitted a man to neglect the care of parents on 
the grounds that the gift is dedicated to God as corban was denounced by 
Jesus according to Mk. 7:11 (The par. in Matt. 15:5 uses doron, gift, offering, in- 
stead of the technical term korban.) The act is condemned as an act of hypocrisy 
in the words of Isa. 29:13 (cf. Mk. 7:6 f.; Matt. 15:7). The Pharisaic teaching on 
this point is characterized as ‘‘tradition’’ which makes void the — “‘word of God” 
(Mk. 7:13). The scribes might have claimed the support of Deut. 23:21 ff. and 
Num. 30:1 ff. in teaching that vows could not be broken. But they had allowed 
obligation to something that was relatively trivial to take precedence over a funda- 
mental, humanitarian — command (in this case the Fifth Commandment [Exod. 

20:12, par. Deut. 5:16)). 
korbanas (Matt. 27:6; cf. Josephus, War 2, 175) denotes the temple treasury in 
which everything offered as korban (or the price of its redemption) was collected. 


The chief priests declined to put into it Judas’ thirty pieces of silver on the grounds 
that they were ‘“‘blood money.” C. Brown 
— First, + Fruit, — Grace, Spiritual Gifts 

(a). B. Ahern, ‘““The Indwelling Spirit, Pledge of our Inheritance’, CBQ 9, 1947, 179-89; J. Behm, 
arrabon, TDNT I 475; M. Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 1967°, 139; F. 
Biichsel, diddmi, TDNT II 166-73; J. D. M. Derrett, “KORBAN, HO ESTIN DORON”, NTS 16, 
1969-70, 364-68; N. Q. Hamilton, The Holy Spirit and Eschatology in St. Paul, 1957, 17-40; J. 
H. A. Hart, ‘Corban’, JOR 19, 1907, 615-50; C. C. Oke, “A Suggestion with Regard to Rom. 
8:23”, Interpretation, 2, 1957, 455-60; K. H. Rengstorf, korban, TDNT III 860-66; S. S. Smalley, 
“Spiritual Gifts and I Corinthians 12-16”, JBL 87, 1968, 427-33. 

(b). SBI 711. 

Glory, Honour 

Two different Gk. word-groups are represented by the Eng. words glory and honour. 
From classical Gk. onwards timé denoted recognition of another’s work by giving 
him the position and honours he merited. It is always something given to God or 
one’s fellow-man (though not necessarily one’s social superior). doxa is often used 
as a synonym, but in the Bible it is a quality belonging to God and is recognized 
by man only in response to him. It is more often translated glory. It suggests 
something which radiates from the one who has it, leaving an impression behind. 
As such, it is in applicable to relationships between men. 

| eaC*d 6d&a (doxa), radiance, glory, repute; doéa¢w (doxazo), 
_ | opraise, glorify; €vd0géoc¢ (endoxos), honoured, glorious; 
évdogatw (endoxazo), honour, glorify; avpvdoédl@ (syndoxazo), glorify together; 

Kevodoéocg (kenodoxos), desirous of praise, conceited, boastful; xevodocia 
(kenodoxia), desire for praise, conceit, vanity, illusion. 

CL This word-group affords one of the clearest examples of change in meaning of 
a Gk. word, when it came under the influence of the Bible. The basic meaning 
of doxa in secular Gk. is opinion, conjecture. This ranges from the opinion about a 
person or thing that I am prepared to defend to the valuation placed on me by 
others, i.e. repute, praise. 
Accordingly, the noun doxa in secular Gk. means expectation, view, opinion, 
conjecture, repute, praise, fame. The vb. doxazé means: think, imagine, suppose, 
magnify, praise, extol (~ Think, art. dokeo nT). 

oT 1. The concepts of doxa and doxazo were transformed in the LXX. This is 

shown, for example, by the fact that the original meaning ‘“‘opinion’’ is not found. 
The meanings praise and honour are shared with secular Gk. But whereas doxa is 
seldom used for the honour shown to a man (for this timé is employed), it is 
frequently used for the honour brought or given to God (cf. e.g. Ps. 29:1; Isa. 42:12). 
This usage meant losing contact with secular Gk. The meaning of pomp, power, 
' earthly majesty is based on OT (Isa. 17:4; 35:2; Hag. 2:3). But above all, doxa 
expresses God’s glory and power (Pss. 24:7 ff.; 29:3; Isa. 42:8). In spite of the 
new reference of the words, the general structure of their meaning remains 



unchanged, for in LXX also they are used for appearance, i.e. for the manifestation of 
a person, with special stress on the impression this creates on others. This aspect is 
essential for our understanding of the concept. 

2. Behind this new meaning lies the Heb. OT concept of kabdéd, glory, honour. 
The LXX represents this by doxa and gives it essentially the same meaning. When 
it is used of God, it does not mean God in his essential nature, but the luminous 
manifestation of his person, his glorious revelation of himself. Characteristically, 
kabéd is linked with verbs of seeing (Exod. 16:7; 33:18; Isa. 40:5), and appearing 
(Exod. 16:10; Deut. 5:24; Isa. 60:1). We may recognize this kabéd in creation 
(Ps. 19:1 [MT 19:2]; Isa. 6:3), but it expresses itself above all in salvation history, 
i.e. in God’s great acts (Exod. 14:17 f.; Ps. 96:3), and especially in God’s presence 
in the sanctuary (Exod. 40:34 f.; 1 Ki. 8:10 f.; Ps. 26:8), which can be conceived 
as fire (Lev. 9:23 f.; Ezek. 43:2; Exod. 24:17). In 1 Sam. 4:21 f. the loss of the ark 
of God to the Philistines meant that “‘The glory has departed from Israel’’. The 
event was reflected in the name Ichabod (ikabéd, where is the glory?). The ark 
symbolized the divine presence which could not be borne (1 Sam. 5 f.; cf. Exod. 
33:17-23). In the last days a full manifestation of the kabéd was expected. Its 
purpose was to bring salvation to Israel (Isa. 60:1 f.; Ezek. 39:21 f.), but also to 
convert the nations (Ps. 96:3-9; Zech. 2:5-11 [MT 2:9-15]). This glory is normally 
found only in God, though in Ezek. 8:2; 1:7, 13 and Dan. 10:5 f. angelic beings 
show some of its characteristics. 

3. The inter-testamental period showed a strong interest in the heavenly world. 
The concept of glory is not confined, as in the OT, to God’s self-revelation. It is 
also applied to the realities of heaven; God, his throne, and the angels. In such 
cases glory may be used with a watered-down meaning, as an epithet which may be 
applied in the language of liturgy and hymns to almost any concept which is linked 
with God. Of importance is the notion that -> Adam in paradise possessed glory 
but lost it through the Fall (cf. G. Kittel, 7DNT II 246; SB IV 940 ff., 1138). This 
led to the idea that men too could share in the glory (but cf. Exod. 33:17-23; 
34: 29-36). 

In Qumran it was expected that the elect would “inherit all the glory of Adam”’ 
(1QH 17:15; cf. CD 3:20). Apocalyptic writings also specially stressed the sharing 
of the saved in glory, while the rabbis described salvation rather as the vision of the 
glory of God. More nationalistic concepts understood the eschatological revelation 
of glory one-sidedly as a glorification of Jerusalem and Israel. Isa. 60:1 ff. was used 
as a proof-text (cf. SB IV 894, 960). The nations would be drawn by the visible 
manifestation of glory, would stream to Jerusalem and would accept the faith of 

NT A. 1. doxa is found 165 times in NT, 77 cases being in the Pauline epistles 
(including Rom. 16 times; 1 Cor. 12 times; 2 Cor. 19 times), it also figures 
prominently in the Petrine letters (1 Pet. 10 times; 2 Pet. 5 times), the Johannine 
writings (Jn. 18 times; Rev. 17 times), and Lk. (13 times), though the word-group 
is completely lacking in 1, 2 and 3 Jn. John (23 times) is the chief user of doxazo, 
found more than 60 times in all. For other forms see A.3. 

2. The meaning of doxa and doxazo is a continuation of the LXX usage and the 
underlying Heb. (cf. oT 1, 2 above). As a result, the ideas of opinion and conjecture 



are not found. We can separate the various shades of meaning as follows. The 
references given are representative instances. 

(a) The meanings honour, fame, repute and in the case of the vb. to honour, 
praise, and the special uses to seek honour (Jn. 7:18; 8:50; 5:44; | Thess. 2:6) and 
to receive honour (Jn. 5:41, 44) belong to general Gk. usage. The specifically 
biblical connotation may be seen in expressions like “‘to give God glory” (Lk. 17:18 
AV, RV; Acts 12:23; Rom. 4:20; Rev. 4:9; 11:13), “to the glory of God” (Rom. 
15:7; 1 Cor. 10:31), in the so-called doxologies (Lk. 2:14; 19:38; Rom. 11:36; 
Gal. 1:5; Phil. 4:20; Eph. 3:21; | Tim. 1:17), and in application to Christ (Rom. 
16:27; 2 Tim. 4:18; Heb. 13:21; 1 Pet. 4:11; 2 Pet. 3:18; Jude 25). 

(b) When applied to men or earthly powers with the meaning of splendour, 
radiance, glory, doxa reflects OT usage: e.g. “‘all the kingdoms of the world and 
the glory of them” (Matt. 4:8 par. Lk. 4:6; Matt. 6:29; 1 Pet. 1:24). 

(c) doxa in the sense of God’s glory, majesty and power is pre-eminently the 
inheritance of the OT. The attempt to link it with Hel. usage (cf. Arndt. 202 f.) is 
untenable, for the magical texts quoted have themselves been influenced by ind 
thought. God is “the God of glory” (Acts 7:2), “the Father of glory” (Eph. 1:17), 
“the majestic glory” (2 Pet. 1:17). The expression “‘the glory of God” is frequent 
(e.g. Matt. 16:27; Acts 7:55; Rom. 1:23; 6:4; Eph. 3:16; 1 Tim. 1:11; Rev. 15:8). 
The — power of God can be mentioned along with his glory (Matt. 5:13 [many 
MSS]; Col. 1:11; 2 Thess. 1:9; Rev. 19:1). The concept is also applied to Christ: 
to his earthly life (Lk. 9:32; Jn. 1:14; 2:11; 1 Cor. 2:8), his exalted existence (Lk. 
24:26; Jn. 17:5; Rom. 8:17; Phil. 3:21; 2 Thess. 2:14; 1 Tim. 3:16), his return 
(Matt. 16:27 par. Mk. 8:38, Lk. 9:26; Matt. 24:30 par. Mk. 13:26, Lk. 21:27; Tit. 
2:13; 1 Pet. 4:13; Jude 24 [but this latter probably refers to the Father]), to his 
pre-existence (Jn. 12:41; 17:5) and also as an all-embracing epithet (Jn. 17:22, 
24; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:4, 6; 2 Thess. 2:14; cf. 1 Cor. 2:8). 

The vb. also is used in a corresponding sense, especially in Jn. Its meaning 
oscillates between transfigure, cause to share in God’s glory (Jn. 7:39; 12:16) 
and make the glory of God or of the Son effective (Jn. 11:4; 13:31 f.; 17:1, 4f.). 

(d) The NT also contains evidence of the concept which had been widespread 
since Ezekiel, that angels and other heavenly beings are endowed with glory (cf. 
OT 2, 3 above). This is found in manifestations from heaven, where stress is laid on 
the visible light, a concept taken from the concept of kabdéd (Lk. 2:9; 9:31; Acts 
22:11; Rev. 18:1). It is carried a step further when angelic powers are called doxai 
in Jude 8 and 2 Pet. 2:10 (cf. E.M.B. Green, 2 Peter and Jude, 1968, 104 f., 168 f.). 
Paul is using Jewish language when he speaks of the doxa of the stars (1 Cor. 
15:40 f.). 

(ce) When Paul speaks of the glory of the first man (1 Cor. 11:7; perhaps also 
Rom. 3:23) and explains the shining of Moses’ face as the shining of the glory 
(2 Cor. 3:7, 13, 18; cf. Exod. 34:30) he is also using Jewish concepts (cf. C. K. 
Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1968, 252; The Second Epistle to the 
Corinthians, 1973, 115-126). 

(f) Equally of Jewish origin is the important conception (cf. oT 3, above) that 
believers share in the glory (Jn. 17:22; 2 Cor. 3:18; Rom. 8:30 vb.) or will do so 
(Rom. 8:17; vb. 8:18, 21; 1 Cor. 2:7; 2 Cor. 4:17; Phil. 3:21; 1 Thess. 2:12; Heb. 



2:10; 1 Pet. 5:1, 4, 10). The Christian hope is “‘the hope of glory”? (Col. 1:27; cf. 
Eph. 1:18; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 2:10). 

3. The other forms of the word-group need only brief mention. syndoxazomai 
(only Rom. 8:17), be glorified together with someone, has essentially the same 
meaning as 2 (f) above. endoxazomai (only 2 Thess. 1:10, 12) is synonymous with 
doxazomai in meaning to be recognized as glorious (cf. 2 (c)). The adj. endoxos (4 
times) means glorious; in 1 Cor. 4:10 it is to be linked with 2 (a), in Lk. 7:25 with 
2 (b), in Eph. 5:27 with 2 (f). Lk. 13:17 looks back to the OT concept that glory 
is revealed in the mighty acts of God (cf. oT 2). kenodoxos (only Gal. 5:26) and 
konodoxia (only Phil. 2:3) express the vain desire for honour. This meaning is not 
unknown in secular Gk., but it is in Christian literature that those words first find 
wider usage. 

B. 1. For the Greeks fame and glory were among the most important values in 
life. The rabbis also had a high esteem for a man’s honour. In Matt. 6:2 Jesus 
censured a piety which looks for honour from men. In Jn. 5:44 he stated that this 
attitude is incompatible with faith. Paul, following the example of Jesus (Jn. 5:41; 
8:50; cf. Heb. 5:4 f.; 2 Pet. 1:17), did not seek glory from men (1 Thess. 2:6). He 
voluntarily accepted dishonour (2 Cor. 6:8; 4:10), strove to carry out his service 
to the honour of the Lord (2 Cor. 8:19 ff.), and looked to the honour and praise 
which Christ would give him as reward on his day (1 Thess. 2:19 f.; Phil. 2:16). 
Paul’s statement that in the final judgment the righteous will receive “‘glory and 
honour and immortality”’ refers to eternal life itself (Rom. 2:7, 10; 5:2). 

2. The glory of this world is depreciated in the light of eschatology (cf. NT A. 2 
(b) above). Jesus, however, could also see the glory of the creation (Matt. 6:29; 
par. Lk. 12:27). 

3. The highest duty of man is to glorify and praise God in worship, word and act 
(Matt. 5:16; Rom. 1:21; 1 Cor. 6:20; 10:31). In the doxologies (cf. NT A. 2 (a) 
above) there is no clear indication as to whether we should add the ind. or subj. 
of the vb. to be. 1 Pet. 5:11 suggests the former. 

4. In the contexts mentioned under 1 and 3 doxa can in general be rendered 
honour. In such cases timé may be used as a synonym. Occasionally the two words 
are used together. We can, however, always hear the overtone of glory when honour 
is given to God and in similar settings (cf. NT A. 2 (a) above), for it must include 
the recognition of God’s glory. 

(a) The NT concept of glory shows an important expansion of the OT concept 
of kabéd in certain directions. This is due to the NT eschatological outlook. In 
the NT glory means the divine-eschatological reality or manner of existence. 
Salvation lies in man and nature having a share in this manner of existence. 

(b) This concept does not, however, cancel the link with the OT kabéd. For 
glory manifests itself in the NT, just as in the OT, in the operation of God’s power 
and salvation in “‘salvation history’. It appears above all in Christ and his work of 
salvation (Matt. 17:2-5 par. Mk. 9:2-7, Lk. 9:29-35; Jn. 1:14; 2:11; 2 Cor. 4:4, 
6), in believers (Jn. 17:22; 2 Cor. 3:18; Eph. 1:18; 3:16; Col. 1:11), and indeed 
already in the old covenant (2 Cor. 3:7—-11). Just as in the OT, glory is partly 
linked with God’s action (Rom. 6:4) and is partly an attribute of his being (cf. NT 
A. 2 (c)). The presence of this “‘personal’’ doxa of God in Christ means the pre- 
sence of salvation (Jn. 1:14; 17:22; 2 Cor. 4:4, 6). 



(c) The expectation of a revelation of glory at the end of time (cf. OT, 2 above) is 
also derived from the OT. The thought in both Judaism and the NT that the 
eschatological glory will take the believers and the whole creation up into itself 
by a new creation or transfiguration is, however, new (Rom. 8:18, 21; 1 Cor. 15:43; 
2 Cor. 3:18; 4:17; Phil. 3:21; Col. 3:4; 1 Pet. 5:1). Nevertheless, the concept had 
been anticipated by Isa. 66:19, 22. 

(d) The way in which heaven is included in this concept is important for the 
understanding of the NT idea of glory. Heaven in the NT is not, as was later 
generally believed, the permanent and final scene for the revelation of glory. Glory 
reveals itself from heaven, but its goal is the transfiguration of the created world 
and mankind. It takes place in the transformed creation. Significantly the escha- 
tological glory appears in a revelation from heaven (Matt. 24:30; Phil. 3:20 f.; 
Col. 3:4; Rev. 21:10 f.). 

(e) Glory with its transforming power is operative even now among believers 
(2 Cor. 3:18; Rom. 8:30; cf. (b) and NTA. 2 (f) above) through the resurrection of 
Christ and our fellowship with him, who is “‘the first fruits of those who have fallen 
asleep” (1 Cor. 15:20). 

5. It is a matter of debate whether Jn. shares this outlook. But here too glory is 
to be understood as a revelation of God, or as the intervention of his power in 
history (Jn. 1:14; 2:11; 11:4; 12:41). We can hardly interpret the relatively strong 
diminution of interest in eschatology in this gospel as meaning that heaven has 
replaced the eschatological completion as the goal of all that exists. The glorifica- 
tion of Jesus is not accomplished merely by his entry into heaven; it becomes a 
reality by his sufferings, death, resurrection (Jn. 12:23—28), and finally by the wit- 
ness of the Spirit (Jn. 14:16). In other words it is a parallel concept to the “‘righteous- 
ness” of Jesus (Jn. 16:8—-11; cf. 1 Tim. 3:16). 

6. The transfiguration of Jesus (Matt. 17:1-8 par. Mk. 9:2-8, Lk. 9:28-36) cor- 
responds in the Synoptics to the continuing possession of doxa in Jn., though only 
in Lk. 9:32 does the narrative use this word. The transfiguration is a parallel on a 
higher plane to Moses’ meeting with God on Mount Sinai (Exod. 24:15 ff.; 33:18- 
34:35). However, it is not to be understood, as in the case of Moses, as merely a 
reflection caused by temporary contact with the heavenly world, but rather as a 
revelation of the glory which Jesus possessed continually but not openly. We can 
deduce this from the fact that the transfiguration preceded the voice from heaven. 
At his parousia Jesus will be revealed in his glory and power (Matt. 19:28 par. 
Lk. 22:30; 24:30). S. Aalen 

Tip | TIN (time), price, value, honour, respect; TIpaw (timao), 
Ts set a price on, honour; atiia (atimia), shame, dishonour, 
disgrace; dtipoc (atimos), despised, dishonoured; atia¢@ (atimazo), dishonour, 
treat shamefully; évtioc (entimos), respected, honoured, valuable, precious. 

CL |. The word timé (from the //iad on) is used in secular Gk. with the following 
main meanings: (a) worship, esteem, honour (used of people); (b) worth, value, 
price (of things); (c) compensation, satisfaction, penalty. 
2. In Gk. thought timé is the proper recognition which a man enjoys in the 
community because of his office, position, wealth etc., and then the position itself, 



the office with its dignity and privileges. The timé of a person, state, or deity must 
be distinguished from that of another. It is a personal possession. Slaves had no 

3. Every deity was shown honour because of the sphere of influence he controlled. 
This was done by sacrifice and hymns of praise. The gods on their part ““honoured”’ 
men by giving them their earthly positions of honour and good fortune. 

_ 4. Shame and dishonour (atimia) put a person outside the community. atimia 
was the technical term for the deprivation of a citizen’s rights. 

5. The Stoics (cf. Epictetus) tried to rise above insult and disgrace by pretending 
that they did not touch the true self but only the body and visible possessions. 
Honour derived from position, such as that of a king, was regarded as a matter of 
indifference. They found fault, however, with the disgraceful treatment of slaves. 

OT 1. (a) In contrast to its use of doxa, the LXX seldom uses timé for God’s 

honour. Normally it applies timé to human honour, although both words 
usually render Heb. kabéd. Man has a position of honour in the creation (Ps. 8: 3-8 
[4-9]). Honour and position of office belong together (cf. timad beside arché in 
Ps. 139:17 [LXX 138:17]). Honour should be shown to parents (Exod. 20:12; 
Sir. 3:3-16), the old (Lev. 19:32), to kings and the mighty (Dan. 2:37; Job 34:19 
LXX). The rabbis stressed the honour due to a teacher of the law, and also one’s 
neighbour including the poor (cf. also Prov. 14:21, 31 [LXX]; Sir. 10:23) and 
Jewish slaves, but not to Canaanite ones. There was a difference of opinion about 
the honour to be shown to a non-Israelite. 

(b) A man marked out by honour might expect a corresponding position, 
wealth (Gen. 31:1 LXX; Isa. 16:14 LXX), and influence (Job 29:20; 30:4, 8, 
LXX — sometimes doxa is used in such passages). A worthy appearance (2 Sam. 
10:5 LXX; Isa. 53:3), fitting speech (Sir. 5:13; cf. Job 29:21—25), and generosity 
(Prov. 22:9, LXX) also went with it. 

2. (a) The godless experience atimia (Isa. 10:16 LXX; Jer. 23:40; cf. Dan. 12:2). 
The people did not grasp where the deepest dishonour lay, i.e. in faithlessness to God 
(Jer. 6:15), and this had to be recognized (Ezek. 16:63). 

(b) For the godly in the OT there was the problem of how dishonour could come 
to them (Job 10:15; 30:1-12). Only the — Servant of the Lord bears shame 
patiently (Isa. 53:3) and leaves his cause in God’s hand. Judaism ascribed an 
atoning value to the death of the martyrs and regarded it as honourable (4 Macc. 
1:10;17:20; Josephus, War 2, 151). The pious rejected the scorn of the godless as 
something derived from a false outlook. The true basis of honour is not earthly 
prosperity but virtue and wisdom (Wis. 3:14—5:5). Mankind should be honoured 
provided that the fear of the Lord is there (Sir. 10:19). A sublimation and restric- 
tion of the concept of honour may be detected here. Apart from Isa. 53, no positive 
value was given to shame. 

NT |. The word-group is not strongly represented in the NT. Jimé is found 41 
times, timad 21 times, the other forms more rarely. Only Paul uses atimia. 

2. (a) Only the positive forms are used in the sense of price, sum of money: 
e.g. timé (price) in 1 Cor. 6:20; timad (to set a price on) in Matt. 27:9 (“‘the price 
of him on whom a price had been set by some of the sons of Israel’’); and entimos 
(precious) in | Pet. 2:4, 6. 



(b) The meaning of timao in the sense of show honour is rare (e.g. Acts 28:10 
(RSVmg)). It is not clear whether timé should be rendered honour or honorarium, 
i.e. remuneration in 1 Tim. 5:17 (cf. Sir. 38:1; so J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral 
Epistles, 1963, 125). 

(c) Generally timé represents the recognition of the dignity of an office or position 
in society. Examples are the authorities (Rom. 13:7; 1 Pet. 2:17), owners of slaves 
(1 Tim. 6:1), a wife (1 Pet. 3:7), the sexes in general (1 Thess. 4:4), service in the 
church (cf. 4 (c) below). In Heb. 5:4 timé means the honour of a position or the 
position itself (cf. 1 Pet. 1:17). The honouring of God is uppermost in the doxo- 
logies, where both doxa and timé occur (1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16; Rev. 4:11). For the vb. 
cf. also Jn. 5:23, 8:49. Honour should be shown to all men (1 Pet. 2:17). 

(d) timé is used for exaltation in the ultimate eschatological salvation (Rom. 
2:7, 10; 1 Pet. 1:7; 2:7; Jn. 12:26). 

3. (a) In the case of atimos the negative aspect sometimes receives less stress. It 
can mean without honour, unhonoured, less honourable (1 Cor. 12:23). In 1 Cor. 
4:10 it is stronger, and means despised. 

(b) atimazé means to handle shamefully, with or without physical maltreatment: 
e.g. the tenants of the vineyard (Mk. 12:4 par. Lk. 20:11), the treatment of the 
apostles by the Sanhedrin (Acts 5:41), the poor (Jas. 2:6). 

(c) atimia is generally translated in the NT by dishonour, e.g. of a man’s long 
hair (1 Cor. 11:14; RSV “‘is degrading’’), of the dead body (1 Cor. 15:43), of the 
apostles ‘‘in honour and dishonour” (2 Cor. 6:8). RSV renders atimia by “‘ignoble”’ 
in 2 Tim. 2:20 which speaks of various kinds of vessels. 

(d) None of the uses deviates from secular Gk. A deepening ethical sense can 
be found in Rom. 1:26, where under the OT influence atimia means “‘shameful”’ 
(NEB, cf. v. 24 where atimazomai is rendered “‘degradation’’). In secular Gk. 
aischros (cf. Lat. turpis) could be used in such contexts. 

4. (a) As in Gk. society and the OT, timé is also used in the context of the social 
order decreed by God. timé is respect for the standing and task of a person who has 
his place in this order. When it is applied to things, it means the recognition of the 
value something has according to recognized norms. Jt may be summarized by 
saying that timé is high valuation based on position in an organized whole. This 
whole is God’s world of men, animals and things. The distinctive distribution of 
honour among things of varying worth is important. The resultant order and grades 
of honour must be respected not only by the one placed lower, but also by the one 
placed higher. While the wife is placed below her husband, but she is to receive 
full honour from her husband (1 Pet. 3:1, 7). 

(b) Things and animals have no honour. In the ancient world this was true also _ 
of slaves (though both the Stoics and the NT judge otherwise), because they had ~ 
no right to direct their lives; they were looked on as things which had timé in the | 
sense only of value or worth. Even this was not inherent, but was placed on them by 
their owner. | 

(c) The Biblical teaching about natural relationships, e.g. man and wife, parents | 
and children, the authorities (see above NT 2(c), OT 1(a)), was developed from this. | 
The same principle was applied to church life. Honour was to be shown the elders — 
(1 Tim. 5:17, but see above 2(b)), widows (1 Tim. 5:3), and the responsible leaders | 



of the congregation in general (Phil. 2:29). It is noteworthy, however, that this hier- 
archical line is crossed by one offering honour to those on a lower level. Those who 
carry out the lowest services should be shown particular honour (1 Cor. 12:23 f.; 
cf. the admonition to show mutual honour, Rom. 12:10). Those who carry out 
their service in purity are all vessels for honour (2 Tim. 2:20). 

(d) Man’s intrinsic honour is based on his position of dominion in creation (Ps. 
8:5-8 [MT 8:6-9]). To that extent it is conferred by his status in the structure. 
However, it is also derived from man’s being formed in the — image of God which 
determines his essential nature. All men should be honoured (1 Pet. 2:17; cf. Rom. 
12:10; this was also the teaching of the Stoics, though they did not base it on the 
imago Dei). Hence slaves were members of the church (1 Cor. 12:13; 7:22 f.; Eph. 
6:9), just as much as non-Israelites. In the church the restoration of the image of 
God has once more become universally possible (Col. 3:10 f.). 

(e) This does not lead, as it did with the Stoics, to the reduction in principle of 
all to the same level and to the refusal of special honour to those holding office. The 
uniqueness of the NT concept of honour lies in the universal claim to honour 
because of the imago Dei. At the same time honour is given to office in its various 
expressions. The honour of man and the honour of office are not mutually exclusive 
any more than are the honour of man and the honour of God. True enough, 
preference for one side or the other must sometimes be shown in definite cases, e.g. 
in the relationship between husband and wife (1 Cor. 11:2 ff.) where Paul seems 
to see a special aspect of the image of God in the man (vv. 7,14), i.e. presumably 
the gift of leadership. (Elsewhere the subjection of the wife is counter-balanced by 
the love of the husband which becomes a reciprocal subjection [Eph. 6:21-33; 
Col. 3:18 ff.].) 

(f) According to the NT, therefore, the Christian must not despise any class of 
man. He must, however, be willing to bear personal dishonour. This is not because 
it was not real suffering as the Stoics thought. The NT agrees with the Stoic and 
Jewish Wisdom Literature, in contrast with the early Israelite, that material 
possessions and wealth no longer constitute a basis for honour. Hence to lose them 
is in itself nothing to be ashamed of. On the other hand, the NT does not reduce 
the ground for honour, as did the Stoics, to an inner quality, such as virtue or 
wisdom. Dishonour, through being despised or suffering physical violence, must 
be borne for the sake of love after the pattern shown by Christ (Isa. 53:3-8; 1 
Pet. 2:23 f.; Heb. 12:2; 1 Cor. 4:10). It is to be endured by the power of God (2 
Cor. 6:7 f.), and is made less bitter by the hope of eternal life and glory (1 Pet.1:7; 
Heb. 12:2; | Cor. 15:43; 2 Cor. 4:17, cf. 4:8). All this presupposes that it is as a 
righteous person that one suffers shame (1 Pet. 3:13, 17). 

(g) The dishonour caused by sin, disgrace and degradation is something quite 
different (Rom. 1:24, 26). Sin of this kind is not regarded simply as a moral lapse. 
The shame lies essentially in the fact that the man has fallen from the honour given 
him by God in creation and has misused his body. Honour is also lost not only by 
perversions but by false asceticism (Col. 2:23). S. Aalen 

On doxa: 

(a). 1. Abrahams, The Glory of God, 1925; G. R. Berry, ‘““The Glory of Jahweh and the Temple’’, 
JBL 56, 1937, 115-17; L. H. Brockington, “‘The Presence of God, a Study of the Use of the Term 
‘Glory of Yahweh’ ”, ExpT 57, 1945, 21-25; and ‘‘The Septuagintal Background to the New 



Testament use of doxa’’ in D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. 
Lightfoot, 1955, 1-8; G. B. Caird, ‘“The Glory of God in the Fourth Gospel: An Exercise in 
Biblical Semantics”, N7S 15, 1968-69, 265-77; G. H. Davies, ‘‘Glory”, /DB II 410 ff.; C. H. 
Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 201-13; A. H. Forster, ‘““The Meaning of doxa 
in the Greek Bible”, Anglican Theological Review, 12, 1929-30, 311-16; D. M. Hay, Glory at the 
Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, 1974; D. Hill, ““The Request of Zebedee’s Sons and 
the Johannine DOXA-Theme’’, NTS 13, 1966-7, 281-5; E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 
1958, 79-82; G. Kittel and G. von Rad, doked, doxa etc., TDNT II 232-55; H. G. May, ‘““The 
Departure of the Glory of Yahweh”, JBL 56, 1937, 309-21; J. Morgenstern, “‘Biblical Theo- 
phanies’’, Zeitschrift fir Assyriologie und verwandte Gebiete 25, 1911; 139-93; A. M. Ramsey, 
The Glory of God and the Transfiguration of Christ, 1949; A. Richardson, An Introduction to the 
Theology of the New Testament, 1958, 64—67, 182 ff.; C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Man, 
1951, 116-23 and 223-29. 

(b). S. Aalen, Die Begriffe “Licht”? und “‘Finsternis” im. Alten Testament, im Spatjudentum und im 
Rabbinismus, Skrifter utg. ay Det Norske Vitenskaps-Akad. i Oslo, Hist.-filos. Kl]. 1, 1951; H. 
Baltensweiler, Die Verklarung Jesu, 1959; H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum 
und Spatjudentum, 1951; W. Caspari, Die Bedeutungen der Wortsippe kbd im Hebrdischen, 1908; 
H. J. Duplacy, ““L’espérance de la gloire de Dieu dans |’Ancien Testament’’, Bible et Vie Chrétienne 
8, 1954; A. von Gall, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, 1900; F. Hesse and E. Fascher, ‘‘Herrlichkeit 
Gottes’’, RGG® III 273 ff.; H. Kittel, Die Herrlichkeit Gottes, 1934; E. Larsson, Christus als 
Vorbild, 1962, 275 ff.; A. Laurentin, Doxa: I Problémes de Christologie: Etudes des Commentaires 
de Jean 17.5 depuis des Origines jusqu’ a Thomas da’ Aquin; Il Dossier des Commentaires de Jean 17.5, 
1972; J. Schneider, Doxa, Neutestamentliche Forschungen WI1/3, 1932; B. Stein, Der Begriff 
k*béd Jahwe und seine Bedeutung fiir die alttestamentliche Gotteserkenntnis, 1939; M. Steinheimer, 
Die ‘“‘Doxa tou Theou” in der rémischen Liturgie, 1951; C. Westermann, kbd, THAT I 794-812. 

On time: 

(a). Arndt, 825; G. W. Harrelson, ‘““Honor’’, [DB II 639 f.; J. Pedersen, Israel, its Life and Culture, 
I-II, 1926, 213-44; R. Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 1965 (see 
index); J. Schneider, timé, TDNT VIII 169-80. 

(b). M. Greindl, Kleos, Kydos, Euchos, Timé, Phatis, Doxa, Dissertation, Munich, 1938; K. 
Keyssner, Gottesauffassung und Lebensauffassung im griechischen Hymnus, Wiirzburger Studien 
zur Altertumswissenschaft 2, 1932; B. Reicke, ““Zum sprachlichen Verstandnis von Kol. 2, 23”’, 
StTh 6, 1952, 39-53 (especially 47-51); R. Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 
1927’, 252 ff.; G. Steinkopf, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Ruhmes bei den Griechen, Disserta- 
tion, Halle, 1937. 

Goal, Near, Last, End, Complete 

Gk. and Buddhist thought has a cyclical understanding of the world in terms of 
eternal, circular movement. By contrast, Christianity developed a fundamentally 
historical understanding of the world in which existence began with — creation 
and will reach its consummation at the end of the world. Beginning and end, 
primal time and final time are not poles in a continuous process divorced from — 
time, separated only by interludes of human activity. According to the Christian 
understanding of the — beginning, the path of history which began with creation 
will lead to a final consummation. This is the goal and destiny of creation which will 
contain more than was given at the beginning. These ideas find expression in the 
NT statements about the te/os, the goal and end of the divine purposes. Paul uses the 
the noun skopos (goal) which is attested only in Phil. 3:14. The adverbs engys 
(near) and makran (far) and the adj. eschatos (last) are basically designations of 
place. They have acquired a temporal sense particularly in the LXX and the NT. 



In biblical language engys frequently denotes temporal proximity, whereas eschatos 
is applied chiefly to the final times and the last day. 

<a éyyvc (engys), near; éyyilw (engizd), approach, come 
| es near; ax pav (makran), far. 
cL 1. In secular Gk. the adv. engys (used from Homer onwards as the opposite of 
makran and porro, far) means: (a) near (in space), near by (e.g. Thuc, 3, 55, 1); 
(b) near in the sense of temporally imminent (e.g. Epict., Dissertationes 3, 26, 6); 
(c) with numbers, nearly (e.g. Xen., Hell. 2, 4, 32); (d) related or similar (e.g. Plato, 
Phd. 55a; Rep. 3, 319e); (e) in the figurative sense of intellectual proximity (e.g. 
Epict., Dissertationes 1, 2, 14). 
2. The later vb. engizo (Aristot. onwards), trans. to bring near, occurs mostly 
intrans. meaning to approach, to come near (e.g. Polyb. 4, 62, 5), occasionally 
with the addition ‘‘(to) the gods” (e.g. Epict., Dissertationes 4, 11, 3). 

oT In the LXX engys mostly translates the Heb. gadrob. engizo translates forms of 

garab, draw near, approach, and ndgas, draw near, approach. The words are 
often found alongside the opposites makran, far, and makrothen, from afar, which 
render formations from the stem rdahagq, to withdraw. 

1. (a) In the spatial sense engizo is frequently found in phrases which describe 
approach to cultic centres (e.g. Exod. 3:5). Only the priests who conform to the 
requirements of the cultic prescriptions can draw near Yahweh’s sanctuary (Lev. 
21:21, 23; Ezek. 40:46; cf. Ezek. 44:13). engizo can also denote more generally 
participation in worship (Isa. 29:13; Ecc. 4:17) and even a devout attitude of 
nearness to God (Ps. 119:169; Hos. 12:7 [EVV v. 6]). 

(b) Like makran (distant, far), engys (near) can also characterize the approval of 
Yahweh. It is one of the distinctive characteristics of the God of Israel, who can 
also work from afar (Ps. 136:8; 139:2), to draw near to his people. ““What great 
nation is there that has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is to us, whenever 
we call upon him?” (Deut. 4:7; cf. also Ps. 34:19; Jer. 23:23 LXX). The nearness 
of God is not understood as a static condition, but as the free divine act of approach- 
ing (theos engizon). It is experienced above all in Israelite worship (cf. Ps. 145:18). 

(c) The pair of words “‘the near and the far’? (Deut. 13:7; Isa. 33:13; 57:19; 
Ezek. 6:12) is a description of totality, meaning and embracing all. Later on in 
Judaism engys, near, marks out the Israelite as distinct from non-Israelites, and 
within Israel the righteous as distinct from the godless. For the meaning next of 
kin, one’s relative, cf. Lev. 21:2 f.; Job 6:15; Est. 1:14 (— Brother). 

2. As an indication of time, the word-group expresses the imminent approach of 
the Day of Yahweh. In opposition to the way of thinking that saw that day in the far 
distance (cf. the quotations in Isa. 5:19; Ezek. 12:22, 27; Amos 6:3), the prophets 
proclaimed its nearness. This day always brings with it the impending judgment 
(Isa. 13:6; cf. also Ezek. 7:7; 30:3; Joel 1:15; 2:1; Zeph. 1:7, 14) which occasions 
darkness and terror. Only the later chapters of Isa. announce the approach of a 
new age of salvation which will bring forth salvation and righteousness (Isa. 46:13; 
50:8; 51:5; 56:1). 

3. The priestly language of the OT lived on, albeit transformed in meaning, in 
the Qumran literature. The community viewed itself in a priestly light. One who 



comes to the community may thus draw near to God. The words “‘come near’’ 
and ‘‘send away’”’ (in the case of refusal) became technical terms for entrance into 
the community (cf. 1 QS 6:16, 19, 22). In a similar way, “‘to come near’”’ is a technical 
expression in Rab. Judaism for the recruiting of a proselyte. 

NT The vb. engizo, to approach, to come near, is chiefly used in the NT by the 

Synoptics and Acts with its original meaning. Paul and Heb. use it more rarely, 
and in John it is not found at all. The adv. engys, near, also occurs most frequently 
in the Synoptics. There are a number of instances in John, but Paul scarcely uses 
it at all. 

1. (a) In the spatial sense engys, near, is used a greater number of times than 
engizo, to come near. In Acts and Jn. the adv. engys has almost exclusively a local 
meaning (e.g. Acts 1:12, “‘which is near to Jerusalem’’; Jn. 19:20, “‘was near to the 
city’’). Occasionally the vb. serves to indicate both place and motion (e.g. Mk. 11:1 
[cf. Matt. 21:1; Lk. 19:29], ““when they drew near to Jerusalem’’). 

(b) The terms are more frequently used with a temporal meaning: the hour of the 
passion has drawn near (Matt. 26:45), the end of all things has come near (1 Pet. 
4:7), summer is near (Matt. 24:32), the Passover was near (Jn. 2:13). 

2. (a) The theological interpretation of the vb. engizo, to come near, in the 
Synoptics is linked with Isa.’s proclamation of salvation: éngiken hé basileia ton 
ouranon, the > kingdom of heaven has drawn near (Matt. 4:17 par. Mk. 1:15; 
Matt. 3:2; 10:7; Lk. 10:9, 11; cf. above oT 2). Behind the formulation éngiken, 
it has drawn near, stands the thought of the divine — promise and preparation. 
The perf. éngiken (the most frequently used tense of engizo) thus expresses the end 
of the time of preparation. God’s kingdom das drawn near, i.e. in the proclamation 
and work of Jesus it is already in the present time. ““Thus Mk. also sees Jesus’ 
proclamation not as the first step of a coming kingdom, but as the consummation 

which has now made its appearance and become real here’ (E. Lohmeyer, Das — 

Evangelium des Markus, 1967 1", KEK I, 2, 30). Corresponding to éngiken, has 
drawn near, is the negative formulation ou makran, not far, which expresses the 
overcoming of the separation between God and man (e.g. Mk. 12:34). 

(b) engys and engiz6 are also used in the context of the awaited apocalyptic 
end-time and the return of the — Son of man. Lk. in particular awaits the future 

of the all-embracing — kingdom of God. The desolation of Judaea and cosmic © 
catastrophes will announce the dawn of the end of the world (Lk. 21:20 ff.). “So . 

with you when you see these things happening, know that the kingdom of God is 

near” (Lk. 21:31; cf. v. 28 “when these things begin to take place... your re- — 
demption is drawing near’’). The connection between the dawn of the kingdom of | 
God in the coming of Jesus and the awaited coming of the Son of Man in the - 
establishment of the reign of God is brought out by Matt. and Mk. Apart from this, | 

both use engizé only in connection with the fate of Jesus (Matt. 21:1 par. Mk. 11:1, 
Lk. 19:29; Matt. 26:46 par. Mk. 14:42). (On the time and character of these 
events —> Generation; — Present, art. parousia.) 

3. (a) Whereas in the Synoptics the vb. is used in both perf. and fut., expressing | 

the consequent tension, Paul relates these terms exclusively to the future. In Rom. 

13:12 and Phil. 4:5 the prospect of the approaching day and the coming Lord : 
provide the basis for the admonitions to the Christians to live a life full of hope. — 



“Tf the deliverance is near, then it is the hour to wake up from sleep” (A. Schlatter, 
Gottes Gerechtigkeit, [1935] 1952, 359). 

(b) The word-group in the Catholic Epistles and Heb. similarly refers to the 
near return of Christ and the imminent end of all things (Jas. 5:8; 1 Pet. 4:7; Heb. 
10:25). Thus engizd in the NT designates almost exclusively the drawing near of 
God and of his salvation to men. Only Heb. 7:19 and Jas. 4:8 speak of a responsive 

drawing near of man to God. W. Bauder, H.-G. Link 

ae éoyatoc (eschatos), extreme, last, least; é&ésyatov 
| el Saal | (eschaton) (noun), end, (ady.) finally; és ydtc (eschatos), 

CL 1. (a) The adj. eschatos, attested from Hom. onwards, is a superlative form 
derived from the prep. ek/ex, out of, away from, and originally designated 
the person or thing that was furthest outside (ex). Spatially it meant the place 
furthest away (e.g. Hesiod, Theog. 731, the utmost ends of the earth), temporally 
the last events of a series (e.g. Hdt., 7, 107), materially the extreme, rarely the highest 
(e.g. Libanius, Orationes 59, 88, greatest wisdom), mostly the lowest place in order 
of rank (e.g. Plato, Tht. 209b; Diod. Sic. 8, 18, 31, the most miserable of men). 

(b) Substantivally to eschaton means the end in spatial and temporal respects 
(e.g. Hdt. 7, 140; 8, 52). Without the art. eschaton can be used just like eschatos 
as an adv., both meaning “‘finally” (e.g. Xen., Anab. 2, 6, 1; P.Oxy. 886, 21). 

2. The Gk. language uses the term eschatos to designate the end-point of a con- 
tinuously conceived succession of circumstances. It corresponds with naturalistic 
Gk. thinking that the “‘extreme’’ is initially represented as the “‘ends of the earth” 
(Dem. Ep. 4, 7; Xen., Vect. 1, 6; Theocritus, 15, 8). In qualitative respects eschatos 
designates an extreme positive or negative intensification (Pindar, O/. 1, 113, the 
highest reaches its peak with kings; Plato, Rep. 36la, greatest injustice; Gorgias 
511d, extreme danger). In Aristotle the term denotes the conclusion of a logical 
path of thought and thus contributes to the systematization of the thought-processes 
(An. 3, 10, 433a, 16). As the expression of order of rank among men, eschatos 
means the opposite of prdtos (— first): the lowest and most miserable of men (Dio 
Cass., 42, 5, 5; Dio Chrys., 21, [38] 37; Appian, Bell. Civ. 2, 77, §322). The temporal 
dimension is expressed in occasional prospects of the end (e.g. Diod. Sic., 19, 59, 6, 
the last, i.e. the concluding and final decision) and in the comprehensive designation 
of God as “the first and the last’ (protos kai eschatos) e.g. Ps. Arist., Mund. 401a, 
28). But this is the least developed sense. Gk. thought has no developed eschato- 
logical understanding of time, i.e. one directed towards a future goal or end of the 
historical process. 

OT The very different historical understanding of existence in the OT writing is 
immediately apparent in a preliminary survey. eschatos occurs some 150 times 

in the LXX. It has local significance only in isolated cases (e.g. Deut. 28:49; Isa. 
48:20; 49:6; Jer. 6:22, ap’ or heos eschatou tés gés, from or to the ends of the 
earth). It is not found at all in a disqualificatory sense. Its use is predominantly in 
the temporal sense to translate formations from the root of ’ahar (after, behind) and 
meaning last, finally, outcome, end. In the historical books the term plays no real 


role, apart from the characteristic and stereotyped phrase “‘from beginning to end”’ 
(cf. 2 Chr. 16:11; 20:34; 25:26). On the other hand, eschatos features particularly 
in prophetic and apocalyptic expectations of the future. 

1. A number of prophets use the formula “‘at the end of the days” (b°ah‘rit 
hayyamim, LXX ep’ eschatou ton hémeron, e.g. Hos. 3:5; Isa. 2:2; 41:23; Mic. 4:1; 
Jer. 23:20; 30:24; 49:39; Ezek. 38:16). This indicates the future-directed thinking 
of the prophets which pointed Israel’s self-understanding — till then largely orientated 
around past events — in a totally new direction. Moreover, the context in which this 
formulation is found reveals that the prophets do not think of “‘the end of the days”’ 
in mythical or non-historical terms. It was a renewed historical time-span, the final 
or end-time. Finally, it is noteworthy that the formula is mostly encountered in 
announcements of salvation or prefacing them. Eschatological time will be stamped 
by Yahweh’s saving activity. Yahweh will make it possible for his people to turn 
back (Hos. 3:5). He will destroy his enemies (Jer. 23:20; 30:24). The nations will 
come to Jerusalem and receive instruction from Israel (Isa. 2:2 ff.; Mic. 4:1 ff.). 
Salvation will penetrate ‘‘to the end of the earth” (Isa. 48:20; 49:6). Here the local 
significance has.a universal eschatological function. In all this Yahweh will reveal 
himself as holy (Ezek. 38:16, 23). However much the individual pictures of salva- 
tion presented by the various prophets differ, the expectation of a comprehensive 
age of salvation ‘‘at the end of the days”’ brought in by Yahweh himself is common 
to them all. 

2. Apocalyptic literature contains numerous allusions to the end of the days 
(e.g. Dan. 2:28, 45; 10:14; 2 Esd. 6:34; Syr. Bar. 6, 8). They are distinguished from 
the prophetic expectation by the progression from the more simple pictures of the 
future into the realm of the visionary, allegorical, and other-worldly. A certain 
element of calculation concerning the final times is discernible (Dan. 8:19 ff.; 
10:14; 12:5 ff.; 2 Esd. 14:5). According to the apocalyptic outlook, dramatic 
battles will take place between various world-powers. There will be cosmic catas- 
trophes in the final times, before Yahweh establishes his transcendent imperishable 
—> kingdom (cf. especially Dan. 2:3 ff.; 7:17 ff.). The end of this world signifies the 
simultaneous beginning of the coming one (2 Esd. 6:7; 7:113). 

In Rabbinic Judaism the calculation of the end (qés) is concentrated on the 
arrival of the messiah (2 Esd. 12:32; cf. SB III 671; IV 1003, 1006). 

The formula “the end of the days” (ah’rit hayyamim) is also found in the Dead 
Sea Scrolls (e.g. 1QpHab 2:5 f.; 9:9; CD 4:4; 6:11). The calculating tendency of . 
apocalyptic has here hardened into a rigid deterministic understanding of the final 
time. It is the fixed and predetermined time of divine visitation (1QS 3:18, 23; CD 
8:2 f.), when the godless and wickedness will be annihilated, but the righteous and | 
truth will live for ever (1QS 4:18 ff.; 1QH 6:30 f.). It is not the saving character of ~ 
the final times that stands in the foreground — as it does in the prophets — but the 
day of disaster, judgment and vengeance (1QS 10:18 ff.; CD 19:5-16). Only a 
small community of elect (4Qflor 1:19), ‘‘the poor of the flock’? (CD 19:9), will be 
saved. By contrast with the expectations of Rab. Judaism, the members of the | 
Qumran sect understand themselves as already the eschatological community of | 
the saved in Israel (1QSa 1:1). It is they who obediently fulfil the divine regulations | 
(CD 20:27 f.), and will be demonstrated to be the true Israel at the end of days | 
(CD 20:33 f.). ) 



NT As in the LXX, the spatial aspect of eschatos in the NT fades into the back- 

ground. In Acts (1:8; 13:47) as in Isa. (see above oT 1) the spatial formula 
“to the end of the earth” (heds eschatou tés gés) has a universal eschatological 
significance. More important are the material overtones of the least and lowest 
(e.g. Lk. 14:9), frequently in the antithesis of protos and eschatos (e.g. Mk. 9:35). 
But in the NT, the chief stress again falls on the temporal dimension of eschatos. 
On the one hand, it distinguishes the time characterized by the coming of Jesus 
from the past (e.g. Heb. 1:2). On the other hand, it contrasts the final future of 
God with the present (e.g. Jn. 11:24). eschatos is a concept which features in the 
Gospels (Matt. 10 times; Jn. 7 times). It also plays a particular role in Paul (6 
times) and Rev. 

1. The Synoptic Gospels record 4 times a maxim from the proclamation of Jesus 
about the first and the last (Mk. 10:31; Matt. 19:30; 20:16; Lk. 13:30). “Many 
who are first will be last, and the last first [esontai protoi eschatoi kai eschatoi 
protoi].” This maxim, formulated with inversion in antithetical parallelism, 
possibly meant originally something like: ““How quickly man’s fortunes change 
overnight”’ (cf. J. Schniewind on Mk. 10:31, Das Evangelium nach Markus, [1931] 
1968, 136). In the mouth of Jesus this aphorism undergoes an eschatological 
radicalization as the conclusion of a discussion concerning the rewards of disciple- 
ship (Mk. 10:28—31 par.). The antithesis of first and last indicates a succession of 
rank customary amongst men (see above CL 2). The first are the nobles in society, 
kings and rulers; the last are the lowest, slaves and outcasts. The point of this 
logion of Jesus lies in the fact that in the coming age this order of precedence will 
be reversed. In the kingdom of God earthly power structures are stood on their 
head. God stands on the side of those who are the last and lowest on earth. To 
them, like the poor followers of Jesus, the kingdom of God is promised, whereas 
those who regard themselves as its first candidates, the noble, the rich and the 
pious, are excluded from it (Lk. 13:28 ff.; Matt. 8:11 f.). Jesus’ followers are given 
the commission of anticipating and realizing now in the present this eschatological 
reversal of all values. It is in this sense that Jesus answers the disciples’ disputes 
about seniority with the reminder: “If anyone wants to be first, let him be last of all 
and servant of all’? (Mk. 9:35). 

2. (a) Both the way of life and the proclamation of Paul are in accord with this 
instruction of Jesus. He counters the Corinthian enthusiasts by saying that God has 
paraded the apostles as the lowest of men, like those condemned to death, a 
spectacle and the scum of the world — not for ever but “‘to this day” (1 Cor. 4:9-13; 
—> Dirt, art. peripséma, perikatharma). This may be compared with 1 Cor. 15:8, 
where with the thought of negative quality is linked the significance of the chrono- 
logical conclusion of the list of witnesses (“‘last of all’’) (cf. G. Kittel, TDNT II 697; 
—» Birth, art. ektrdma). 

(b) Within the framework of his Adam—Christ typology (cf. Rom. 5:12-21; 
1 Cor. 15:21 f.) Paul contrasts in 1 Cor. 15:45 the first man — Adam (nT 3(e)) with 
Christ “‘the last Adam”’ (eschatos Adam). Adam and Christ are not here thought of 
as individual persons, but each as representatives of a whole humanity. The “‘last 
Adam’’ therefore does not mean the last man either numerically or chronologically, 
but — as the allusion to the gnostic primal man myth in v. 47 shows — Christ as 
the new, the second representative of a new humanity created in his image, by 



contrast with the first humanity summarised in Adam (cf. C. Colpe, TDNTVIII 
474 ff.). Paul therefore understands the risen Christ, the creator of life, as the 
eschatological prototype of God’s new humanity. With the resurrection of Jesus 
the final time has already begun. 

(c) The letters of other authors confirm that this is not only a Pauline idea, but 
one belonging to early Christian eschatology generally. In Heb. 1:2 the prophetic 
expectation of the final times expressed in the formula ep’ eschatou ton hémeron 
(“in the last days’’, cf. above oT 1) is related to the present time of the early 
Christians by the addition of the demonstrative toutdn (“‘these’’, i.e. “in these 
last days’’). This has come about through the fact that ““God has spoken fo us by a 
Son’*. With the enthronement of Jesus as — Son and as — Lord of — Creation the 
turning-point of the ages has come. Hebrews understands the early Christian 
present as the beginning of the final time. 1 Pet. also speaks of Christ “‘revealed at 
the end of the times” (1:20; cf. also Mk. 12:6), and 1 Jn. makes the recipients of his 
letter emphatically aware that they are living in the “last hour” (2:18). To the NT 
writers, the characteristics of the final time, now dawned, include the outpouring 
of the — Spirit (Acts 2:17; cf. Joel 2:28-32), the growth of mora] corruption (2 
Tim. 3:1 ff.), and the appearance of scoffers (2 Pet. 3:3; Jude 18) and —» antichrists 
(1 Jn. 2:18). 

(d) The term eschatos does not, however, serve merely to denote the new time 
which has begun with the coming of Jesus. It also refers to the final, consummative 
action of God that is still to come. In 1 Cor. 15:23 ff. Paul makes use of apocalyptic 
ideas (see above OT 2) in order to express the chronological sequence of the future 
events of the final times. In this scheme death is chronologically the last and 
physically the hardest enemy to be destroyed before the final goal (-~ telos) of God 
is reached (v. 26 ff.). 

3. Only in John’s Gospel is explicit allusion found to the “‘last day’’ (eschaté 
hémera, e.g. 6:39 f., 44, 54; 11:24; 12:48). It is absent from the synoptics. The 
expression takes up and continues the prophetic exposition of the “day of Yahweh’’ 
(on this see G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, II, 1965, 119-125). R. Bultmann 
contends that these passages have been redacted by the early church (cf. his treat- 
ment of 6:27—-59 in The Gospel of John, 1971, 218-34). But in view of the context 
(cf. 6:39 f.), and of the existential bent of his interpretation (e.g. on 11:24 f.), this 
must remain a hypothesis on the level of conjecture. The decisive mark of the 
“last day’’, according to the Johannine witness, is the resurrection of the dead. The 
judgment of unbelievers (12:48) represents the negative side of this. Thus in the 
expectation of the end in John’s Gospel, as in the eschatological proclamation of 
the prophets (see above OT 1), it is not the thought of judgment, but the all-embrac- 
ing salvation that stands in the foreground. 

4. (a) The deterministic thinking about judgment in the Dead Sea Scrolls (see 
above oT 3) did not find acceptance in the NT. The only reminder of the concep- 
tions of vengeance of the Qumran sect is the vision in Revelation of the seven last 
plagues, through which the divine wrath is discharged (15:1 ff.; 21:9; — Anger, 
Wrath). But the climax of this vision is not in the annihilation of enemies, but 
in the song of praise to the - Lamb (15:3; 19:7 ff.; 21:22). 

(b) The formula “the first and the last’”’ (ho protos kai ho eschatos) is only found 
as a self-designation of the exalted Christ (1:17; 2:8; 22:13). This goes back to the 



Heb. wording of the divine predicates in Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12. In the Gk. trans- 
lation of this expression the LXX has avoided the divine title of eschatos and uses 
a paraphrase instead, perhaps because of negative undertones. The formula belongs 
essentially to the synonymous phrases “the Alpha and the Omega’”’ (Rev. 1:8; 
21:6; 22:13; Alpha being the first, and Omega the last letter of the Gk. alphabet), 
and “‘the beginning and the end”’ (22:13). The application of these divine predicates 
to the exalted Christ means the ascription to him of a rank equal with God’s with 

the attribution of the functions of Creator and Perfecter. H.-G. Link 
= ae tédoc (telos), end, conclusion, close, goal; teAéw (teleo), 
a $ | bring to an end, finish, complete, carry out, accomplish; 

tehElow (teleiod), bring to completion, complete, accomplish, finish, fulfil, make 
perfect; téAeioc (teleios), complete, perfect; tedelotnc (teleiotés), perfection, 
maturity; tedeiwoic (teleidsis), perfection, fulfilment; tedeiwtyc (teleidtés), 
perfecter; ouvtéAeia (synteleia), completion, close, consummation; ovvtedém 
(synteled), bring to an end, complete, carry out, fulfil, accomplish; tedevtdw 
(teleutad), come to an end, in the sense of die; tedevtH (teleuté), end, euphemism 
for death. 

CL 1. (a) The noun felos is derived from a root tel/-, which means to turn round 

(telos = tax; Dem., Or. 20, 19). Originally it meant the turning point, hinge, the 
culminating point at which one stage ends and another begins; later the goal, the 
end. Marriage is in this sense a te/os (Artemidorus, Onirocriticus 2, 49; the spouse is 
teleios, complete, Pausanias 8, 22, 2), as also is death (Xen., Jnstitutio Cyri 8, 7, 6; 
Plato, Leg. 4, 717e). telos can mean the completion of intellectual development 
(Plato, Menexenus 249a) and physical (Plato, Leg. 8, 834c) development, as the use 
of the term feleios also makes clear (Hdt. 1,183,2). telos can have dynamic char- 
acter, and is used, for example, of the ratification of a law (Aristot., Pol. 6, 8p, 
1322b, 13; cf. teled, to bring to a telos, to complete, e.g. to make his word come 
true [Hom. //. 14, 44]). 

This dynamic character is also clear in the religious sphere, where sacrifices and 
religious rites are called te/é; their intention is to bring men nearer to God (Soph., 
Ant. 143). Also of significance is the religious description of God as the arché kai 
telos, the beginning and end of all things (cf. K. Preisendanz, Papyri Graecae 
Magicae, IV, 2836 f.). He alone embraces beginning and end (Scythinos; cf. Diels 
I, 189, 32 f.). The function of the formula is thus to make a statement which em- 
braces totality. 

(b) Anything that has reached its telos is teleios, complete, perfect (e.g. un- 
blemished sacrifical animals, Hom., J//. 1, 66). Both a doctor and a thief can be 
perfect (Aristot. Metaph. 4, 16p, 1021b, 15 ff.). One brings something to completion, 
to perfection (teleiod, e.g. Aristot., Eth. Nic. 3p, 1174a, 15 f.). The pass. of teleiood, 
to be made perfect, i.e. to reach perfection, is used equally of human adulthood 
(Plato, Symp. 192a) and of fully-grown plants (Aristot., Gen. An., 776a, 31). The 
noun fe/eiotés occurs only rarely. It denotes a state of completeness or perfection 
(e.g. Aristot., Phys., 8, 7p, 261a, 36). teleiosis is the carrying out of the te/eioun, the 
realization, execution, conclusion (e.g. of some work [cf. W. Dittenberger, Sy/loge 



Inscriptionum Graecarum II, 799, 1, 29]). A teleidtés is one who effects the teleioun, 
the perfecter. This word is hitherto only once attested in Christian literature (Heb. 

2. In Gk. philosophy telos has the primary meaning of goal. For the pre-Socratics 
the goal of life was delight in the beautiful (Leucippus), contentment (euthymia, 
Democritus; cf. F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, I, 1946, 125 f.), and con- 
templation (thedria, Anaxagoras, Frag. 29; cf. Diels II, 13,11). In Plato and Aris- 
totle the te/los to which one aspires is an ethical goal (Plato, Rep. 2 introduction; 
Aristot., Eth. Nic. introduction), and ultimately happiness and bliss (eudaimonia). 
In the realm of ethics, therefore, Plato can equate the concept of the perfect 
(teleios) with that of the good (agathos) (Phib. 61a). 

In gnosticism “‘perfection” is a technical term in the myth of the ‘redeemed 
Redeemer.”’ He is the “‘perfect man” (cf. Hippol., Haer. 5, 7, 37). Anyone who is 
saved by him through true knowledge is the “‘perfect”’ gnostic (cf. Hippol., Haer. 5, 
8, 30). Whether te/eios was a technical term for initiates in the Hel. mystery religions 
is disputed (cf. the literature referred to by Arndt, 817). 

oT 1. (a) telos occurs more than 150 times in the LXX, chiefly in adverbial com- © 
binations. Thus eis to telos, for ever, is the puzzling and erroneous translation © 
of the Heb. phrase Jam*nasséah in the heading of 55 Pss. and Hab. 3:19. It should | 

probably be translated by “‘for the choirmaster” or “‘for musical performance” 
(cf. H.-J. Kraus, Psalmen, I, 5; cf. A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, I, 1972, 48). 

eis telos is found more than 15 times as translation of /anesah, for ever (e.g. Job | 
20:7; Ps. 9:7; Hab. 1:4). Starting from the basic meaning “‘to the finish,” eis telos | 
can mean utterly (e.g. 2 Chr. 12:12), or, when understood temporally, for ever | 
(e.g. Job 23:7). Sometimes eis te/os is used where there is no MT equivalent (e.g. — 

Gen. 46:4; Ezek. 15:4). It is also of importance that telos occurs repeatedly as a 
translation of gés, gaseh or qg°sat, end, border, boundary. In such cases it means 

conclusion, end (cf. 2 Sam. 15:7; 2 Ki. 8:3). gés in the eschatological sense is © 

translated in the LXX not by telos, but by synteleia, completion (see below, 2(a)). 
(b) teled is found some 30 times for 8 Heb. equivalents: most frequently (7 

times) for the vb. kalah (qal and piel) meaning to bring to an end, to fulfil (e.g. 
Ruth 2:21; Ezra9:1). It occurs in the pass. as a religious term: to consecrate | 

oneself (e.g. to the service of Baal Peor, cf. Num. 25:3, 5; Ps. 105:28; Hos. 4:14). 

(c) teleios is attested 20 times in the LXX: 7 times as equivalent of the Heb. root © 
salém, to be sound, and 7 times for tam(im), complete, sound. The stress lies on | 
being whole, perfect, intact. It is used of the heart which is wholly turned towards | 
God (1 Ki. 8:61; 11:4), and of the man who has bound himself wholly to God | 
(Gen. 6:9; cf. Deut. 18:13). The thought of totality is also shown in the mention | 
of a total depopulation (Jer. 13:19), and in the fact that whole-offerings can be > 

called teleiai (Jdg. 20:26; 21:4). 
(d) teleiod (25 instances) has likewise the semantic content of being perfect and 

whole: to show oneself perfect, i.e. blameless (2 Sam. 22:26, hith. of tamam; ct. 
Sir. 31:10); to make beauty perfect (Ezek. 27:11). It is used 9 times in the Penta-— 

teuch as a religious term (apart from Lev. 4:5) to translate the Heb. phrase millé’ 

(vad), to fill (the hand), i.e. to consecrate for the cult (e.g. Exod. 29:9, 29). But | 
teleiod also means to bring to its conclusion (2 Chr. 8:16; Neh. 6:16). 




(e) teleiotés (occurring only 5 times) can also be an equivalent for formations 
from the root tam signifying perfection or integrity (Jdg. 9:16, 19; Prov. 11:3). 
Wis. 6:15 speaks of perfection of understanding. 

(f) teleidsis (16 times in the LXX) occurs mainly in connection with cultic usage. 
On 10 occasions it translates milli’?im (e.g. Exod. 29:22, 26; cf. (d)) and means 
consecration. It occurs chiefly in connection with the consecration of priests. 

2. (a) In the apocalyptic literature of the OT the Heb. gés is understood eschato- 
logically (see above 1 (a)). The LXX translates it chiefly by synteleia, end, com- 
pletion (e.g. Dan. 8:19; 11:27). In this eschatological sense gés in Rab. literature 
refers chiefly to the days of the messiah’s coming which were ordained before the 
end of the world (cf. SB I 671; III 416). The end of the world can also be spoken of 
idiomatically in the sense of going on for ever (e.g. Yeb. 1:1; Nazir. 1:3). 

(b) In Qumran the use of gés as an eschatological technical term is not attested. 
The final times are called hagqgés ha@’ah*rén, the last time (1 QpHab 7:7, 12; cf. also 
the expression g°mar haqgés, the consummation of time, 1Qp Hab 7:2). Otherwise 
gés means time, period, in general. 

In Qumran the term “perfect’’ is coloured by the OT. Those who are perfect 
(tamim) are those who keep God’s law wholly and so walk perfectly in his ways 
(1QS 1:8; 2:2). In a narrower sense the members of the community are called “‘the 
perfect” (1QS 8:20; cf. 8:4 ff.). 

(c) Philo has a double te/os in the life of man: — wisdom (sophia), i.e. the perfect 
and direct understanding of God which comes about by learning, and — virtue 
(areté) which is attained by practice (cf. W. Vélker, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei 
Philo von Alexandrien, 1938, 176 f., 203 ff.). He has three stages on the way to 
perfection: beginners, advanced and perfect (Leg. All. 3, 159). To Philo repentance 
holds second place to perfection (teleiotés) and the “unbroken perfection of virtues 
stands nearest to divine power” (Adr. 26). Both Philo (Plant. 93) and Josephus 
(Ant. 8, 280) have the comprehensive description of God as arché kai telos, begin- 
ning and end (see above, cL | (a)). 

NT In the NT the words of this group occur fairly often: te/os 41 times, teled 28 

times, teleios 20 times, teleiod 23 times, teleiotés twice, teleidtés once (Heb. 12:2) 
and teleidsis twice. A striking point is that te/os occurs relatively frequently in the 
Synoptics and Paul, teled particularly in the Synoptics and in Rev., whereas fe/eios 
and its derivatives are more common in Heb. than in any other NT writing. 

1. The Letters of Paul. (a) Paul uses te/os to mean end-result, ultimate fate (cf. G. 
Delling, telos, TDNT VIII 55). Rom. 6:21 f. speaks of the alternatives which face 
man as a result of his conduct: death (v. 21) or life (v. 22; cf. Ps. 73:17). According 
to Phil. 3:19, the enemies of the cross of Christ find their ultimate fate in eternal 
destruction (cf. also 2 Cor. 11:15). telos occurs 3 times after a preposition: “‘who 
will sustain you to the end [heds telous]’ (1 Cor. 1:8); “‘understand fully [heds 
telous]” (2 Cor. 1:13); “‘at last [eis telos]’? (1 Thess. 2:16 RSV, cf. mg. ‘“completely’’, 
“for ever’’). telos means end in the sense of cessation in Rom. 10:4 (in Christ the 
law has ceased to be the way of salvation), and also 2 Cor. 3:13 (the end of the 
brightness on the face of Moses concealed by the veil). ([Ed.] M. Black, however, 
argues that telos in Rom. 10:4 involves more than the simple idea of cessation. 
As in 1 Pet. 1:9, the idea conforms more closely to classical Gk.: “‘the logical end 



of a process or action —its issue, consummation, perfection — and thus in philo- 
sophical writings its chief good.” The idea is similar to that of | Tim. 1:5: “‘the end 
of the commandment is love.” Black concludes that Christ is the end of the law in 
the sense of “‘the climactic development (practically ‘perfection’, ‘perfecting’)’”’ 
which in turn implies the cessation of the validity of the ‘‘old law’ (Romans, New 
Century Bible, 1973, 138; cf. E. E. Schneider, “Finis Legis Christus,’ ThZ 20, 1964, 
410-22; R. Bultmann, “Christ the End of the Law,” Essays Philosophical and 
Theological, 1955, 36-66; F. Fliickiger, “Christus, des Gesetzes Telos,” ThZ 11, 
1955, 153-7; R. Bring in StTh 20, 1966, 1-36.) 

1 Cor. 10:11 deals with the ends of the times which “have come over us” (H. 
Conzelmann, Der erste Korintherbrief, 1969"', KEK 5; cf. C. K. Barrett, The First 
Epistle to the Corinthians, 1968, 227 f.): the old time will soon be past; we are living 
at the close of time (cf. 1 Cor. 7:29, 31: 16:21). In 1 Cor. 15:24 telos means the 
conclusion of the eschatological events (cf. Mk. 13:7 par. Matt. 24:6, Lk. 21:9), 
the point of time when Christ hands over the —> kingdom to his — Father. telos 
as goal is found in | Tim. 1:5. Finally, in Rom. 13:7 telos means tax (cf. v. 6 
[telein], to pay taxes). 

(b) teled twice means to achieve one’s object: of the power of Christ in the 
weakness of the apostle (2 Cor. 12:9); of the desires of the flesh (Gal. 5:16). In two 
other places it means to bring to an end: of fulfilling the Law (Rom. 2:27); and of — 
completing one’s course (2 Tim. 4:7). Acts 20:24 uses teleiod in this sense (cf. » 
13:25). In Rom. 13:6 teled means to pay (cf. above (a)). 

(c) teleios occurs 5 times meaning mature, adult: 1 Cor. 2:6; 14:20; Phil. 3:15 
(Paul’s statement in v. 12 that he has “not yet become perfect [ouch hoti édé 
teteleibmai]’ means that he has not yet attained the final thing, the victor’s prize of _ 
the heavenly calling in Christ Jesus [v. 14]); Eph. 4:13 (the church is figuratively 
called a “grown man’’); and Col. 1:28 (the grown man as the goal of the apostle’s 

Twice teleios is that which is wholly in accord with God’s will (Rom. 12:2, cf. 
Gen. 6:9; and Col. 4:12). In 1 Cor. 13:10 “the perfect’? means the future world, 
in which everything imperfect (v. 9) which distinguishes our present world, is 
overcome. In Col. 3:14 love is called “the bond of perfectness [syndesmos tés 
teleiotétos|” (AV; cf. RSV “which binds everything together in perfect harmony’’). 
For by it the gifts given to the — church (v. 12 f.) are fitted together into a whole. 

2. The Synoptic Gospels. (a) In the eschatological discourses of Jesus telos is used — 
as a technical term for the end of the — world (Matt. 24:6 par. Mk. 13:7; Matt. ~ 
24:14: Lk. 21:9; cf. the expression synteleia [tou] aidnos, the consummation of the | 
age, Matt. 13:39 f.,49; 24:3; 28:20). It also occurs several times in the prepositional | 
combination eis telos (cf. NT 1 (a)). This probably refers to the end of the world | 
(Matt. 10:22; 24:13 = Mk. 13:13), since this is mentioned in the context (Matt. 
24:6, 14; Mk. 13:7). In Lk. 18:5 eis telos means finally. | 

The phrase telos echein, to have an end, occurs twice. In Mk. 3:26 a kingdom in 
which division dominates is said to have an end, i.e. ceases to stand (cf. on this Lk. | 
1:33: the reign of Christ has no end). Lk. 22:37 attributes to Jesus the statement | 
that ‘“what has been written about me has an end [RSV ‘fulfilment’],”’ for the words | 
of Scripture (Isa. 53:12) are being fulfilled in him. telos as outcome is found in | 
Matt. 26:58, and as tax in Matt. 17:25 (cf. v. 24 where te/ein means to pay). 



(b) Typical for Matt. is his use of teled in redactional passages. His formula 
“when Jesus had ended” concludes the five great instructional discourses (7:28; 
19:1; 26:1; 11:1; 13:53). Matt. 10:23 (the disciples will not have come to the end 
of the towns of Israel before the parousia breaks upon them) and Lk. 12:50 (Jesus 
is in great distress until his baptism, i.e. his suffering [cf. Mk. 10:38], has been 
completed) also have the sense of “‘carrying through to the end.” Lk., however, 
uses the vb. twice in the pass. for the fulfilment of Scripture (Lk. 18:31; 22:37; cf. 
also Acts 13:29) and once in the act. for the fulfilling of the — law (Lk. 2:39). 

(c) The adj. teleios occurs only in Matt. In 5:48 there is the summons to be per- 
fect, as the heavenly —> Father is perfect. In the light of the context, this is a com- 
mand to be compassionate, to love friend and foe (cf. Lk. 16:36). To serve God 
with an undivided heart (cf. oT 1 (c)) can also mean: sell your possessions and 
give them to the poor (19:21). 

(d) The vb. teleiod is used only in Lk. When the days of the Passover feast were 
ended the boy Jesus stayed behind at Jerusalem (Lk. 2:43). Jesus told the Pharisees 
to tell Herod that, “‘the third day I shall be completed”’ (Lk. 13:32). Despite Herod 
Antipas’ threats of murder he intended to continue his work for the salvation of 
men “today” and “tomorrow’’. What his completion on the third day signifies is 
not entirely clear. Does it mean that God will put an end to his work on the third 
day? Or does Jesus mean: Whatever violence men inflict on me I shall go on 
working, for “‘on the third day’”’ I shall be completed notwithstanding, i.e. rise 
from the dead (cf. 9:22; 18:33; 24:7, 46)? (+ Number, art. tritos.) 

Finally teleidsis also occurs in Lk. 1:45 meaning “‘fulfilment.”’ 

3. James and I Peter. In Jas. the stress lies on teleios (which occurs 5 times), 
in 1 Pet. on telos (which 4 times). 

(a) teleios has also the basic meaning of “‘whole’”’ in James. One is perfect, i.e. 
not lagging behind in any point (1:4), when one is patient and forbearing. Jas. calls 
the law of — freedom, by which he means the commandment to love one’s neigh- 
bour (2:8), perfect (1:25), because this alone makes men really free (cf. Jn. 8:31 f.; 
Gal. 5:13). That God’s gifts can be called perfect (1:17) goes without saying. 
According to Jas., the man who does not offend in his words is whole and without 
fault (3:2). teleiod accordingly means to become whole: only through works is 
faith brought to wholeness (2:22, cf. vv. 17, 20). Elsewhere Jas. also uses telos as 
outcome (5:11; cf. Matt. 26:58) and te/ed as to fulfil (a law 2:8; cf. Lk. 2:39). 

(b) 1 Pet. uses telos as goal (1:9), as an eschatological term (4:7; cf. Matt. 24:6), 
as ultimate fate (4:17; cf. Rom. 6:21 f.), and as meaning finally (3:8). teleids, used 
adverbially, occurs in 1:13, meaning entirely. 

4. Hebrews. In Heb. this word-group occurs with the greatest frequency, rela- 
tively speaking (18 times); only the vb. teled is lacking. 

(a) By contrast with its use in the rest of the NT, teleiod is here attested 9 times, 
nearly always with cultic overtones (cf. oT 1 (d)). It means to make perfect, in the 
sense of consecrate, sanctify, so that — like the OT priests — one can come before 
God. Heb. uses the vb. to elucidate the distinction between Christ, the high > 
priest perfected through suffering (2:10) and eternally perfect (7:28), who was thus 
able to be the source of eternal salvation for his people (5:9), and the priests of the 
old — covenant who were men subject to weakness (7:28), and whose — sacri- 
fices could not perfect their consciences (9:9; cf. also 10:1). Christ alone was able 



to perfect his people by a single sacrifice (10:14). The — law (7:19), i.e. the Levi- 
tical priesthood, has utterly failed to bring about sanctification (teleidsis, 7:11). 
Therefore, Heb. calls Christ’s heavenly sanctuary the ‘‘more perfect’ (9:11) by 
contrast with the earthly one. 

teleioo is twice used without cultic reference. Heb. 11:40 means that the witnesses 
to faith under the old covenant (v. 39) did not reach perfection, for this was alone 
given by Christ (cf. 10:14). Now, however, they too have come to share in the 
perfection (12:23). 

(b) teleios, meaning adult, occurs in 5:14. teleiotés, ““maturity” (RSV, 6:1), 
correspondingly means that part of Christian doctrine which is intended for adults 
It is the opposite of arché, > beginning (5:12; 6:1). 

teleidtés stands alongside archégos in 12:2 (cf. the formula arché kai telos, see 
CL | (a)): Jesus is the beginner and perfecter of faith. He has not only maintained 
faith right to the end (5:7 f.; 12:3); he has also laid the foundation of faith (cf. 

(c) telos occurs in 2 prepositional combinations: mechri telous, to the end (3:14, 
this same phrase in v. 6 probably derives from v. 14); and achri telous, until the end 
(6:11). telos means outcome in 6:8 and end in 7:3. 

5. The Johannine Writings. teleiod occurs (a) 5 times in Jn. and teled twice; (b) 4 
times in | Jn.; (c) teled twice in Jn. Rev. has teled 8 times and fe/os 8 times. ! 
(a) In Jn. 4:34; 5:36; 17:4, teleiod is used where Jesus speaks of the works of 
the —> Father which he has to accomplish. On the — cross he can say that they are _ 
accomplished (tefe/estai, it is finished, 19:30, cf. v. 28). In the High Priestly Prayer — 
Jesus prays that his own may be perfected in unity (17:23), so that the world may © 
recognize the sending of Christ (cf. v. 21). In Jn. 19:28 teleiod is used of the Scrip- | 
tures being fulfilled (cf. Ps. 22:18). telos occurs once, in the prepositional combina- — 

tion eis telos (13:1): Jesus loved his own to the end, i.e. perfectly, wholly. 

(b) In 1 Jn. the pass. of te/eiod is used 4 times with reference to — love. Love of 
God reaches its wholeness, when men keep his word (2:5) and love their neighbours — 
(4:12). This love attains its goal in that they are liberated from fear on the day of 
judgment (4:17; cf. 2:28). One who knows fear is not perfectly determined by this | 
love, for perfect love drives out fear (4:18). : 

(c) Revelation has te/ed 6 times meaning to finish, or (pass.) to be finished. Rev. | 
11:7 refers to the completion of a testimony. Rev. 15:1 announces the seven last 
plagues upon the world in which God’s wrath is brought to completion (cf. v. 8). 
Rev. 20 speaks 3 times of the end of the thousand-year reign (vv. 3, 5, 7;—> | 
Chiliasm in Glossary of Technical Terms). Rev. 10:7 and 17:17 deal with the mys- | 
tery of God or the words of God being fulfilled. What God has previously deter- | 
mined is fulfilled (cf. Lk. 18:31; 22:37). 

The formula “beginning and end” (cf. Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12) expresses the | 
power of God (21:6) and Christ (22:13) which embraces time and creation. Just as 
God is the beginning and end (cf. 1:8), the creator and perfecter of all things, so 
also is the exalted Christ (cf. 1:17; 2:8). Rev. has telos once in the prepositional | 
combination achri telous, until the end (2:26). It occurs in a summons to hold fast 
continually the works of Christ. | 

6. In summing up the theological function of the word-group in the NT, a distinc- © 
tion can be drawn between an eschatological and an anthropological aspect. The » 



two are bound up with the general areas of meaning associated with te/os on the 
one hand and fe/eios on the other. 

(a) First and foremost is the eschatological function of telos. The dynamic, goal- 
directed character of the noun is further underlined by the frequent use of the vb. 
teled. This aspect stands out with particular clarity in those passages which are 
concerned with the future consummation both in the Synoptics (cf. the so-called 
Little Apocalypse, Mk. 13 par.), the Pauline letters (e.g. Phil. 3:19) and Rev. (e.g. 
20:1 ff.). The important point here is that the end is not understood simply as the 
mechanical cessation of movement. It is the consummating conclusion of a dynamic 
process, the goal of which manifests the realization of its meaning and its inten- 
tions. Since telos is a term with heavy apocalyptic overtones, the historically 
conditioned apocalyptic images and computations linked with it cannot be taken 
over wholesale without more ado by contemporary eschatological thought about 
the future promised in Christ. Rather, the universal, cosmic themes and implica- 
tions inherent in them must be restated within the framework of Christian eschato- 

(b) Connected with the idea of the end as the completion and realization of a 
goal is the sense of te/eios as that which has reached its goal, and is thus completed 
and perfected. To the extent that the whole is achieved only at the end, te/eios may 
be applied in its fullest sense only to God (e.g. Matt. 5:48) and Christ (e.g. Heb. 
7:28). In the context of individual human development feleios applies to the man 
who has reached maturity, the grown man who has come of age (especially in Paul). 
The NT does not speak of an ideal of ethical perfection which is to be realized by 
degrees (cf. G. Delling, TDNT VIII 77). Rather, when viewed against the back- 
ground of the OT concepts of tamim and Salém and applied to people’s actions, 
teleios signifies the undivided wholeness of a person in his behaviour. It is in this 
sense that the later writings of the NT, especially Matt. (e.g. 19:21) and James 
(e.g. 1:4), frequently use the word. When applied to man and ethics, therefore, 
teleios denotes not the qualitative end-point of human endeavour, but the antici- 
pation in time of eschatological wholeness in actual present-day living. Christian 
life in the NT is not projected idealistically as a struggle for perfection, but escha- 
tologically as the wholeness which a person is given and promised. 

R. Schippers 
—> Abomination of Desolation, + Beginning, — Present, — Time 

(a). R. Bultmann, ‘“‘Christ the End of the Law’’, Essays Philosophical and Theological, 1955, 36-66; 
A. Deissler and F. Mussner, ‘“‘Perfection’”’, EBT II 658-67; G. Delling, telos etc., TDNT VIII 
49-87: E. E. Ellis, ‘Present and Future Eschatology in Luke”, NTS 12, 1965-66, 27-41; R. N. 
Flew, The Idea of Perfection in Christian Theology, 1934; E. Fuchs, skopos, etc. TDNT VII 413-17; 
E. Kasemann, “‘An Apologia for Primitive Christian Eschatology’, in Essays on New Testament 
Themes, 1964, 169-95; G. Kittel, eschatos, TDNT II 697 f.; W. G. Kimmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 
1957; J. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 1967; C. F. D. Moule, “‘Obligation in the Ethic of Paul’’, in 
W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr, eds., Christian History and Interpretation 
(John Knox Festschrift), 1967, 401 ff. (on telos in Rom. 10:4); R. Niebuhr, The Nature and 
Destiny of Man, 11 Human Destiny, 1943; M. Noth, ““The Understanding of History in Old 
Testament Apocalyptic’’, in The Laws in the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 194-214; H. P. 
Owen, ‘‘The ‘Stages of Ascent’ in Heb. v. 11—vi. 3”, NTS 3, 1956-57, 243-53; J. du Plessis, Teleios: 
The Idea of Perfection in the New Testament, 1959; H. Preisker, engys etc., TDNT II 330-33; A. 
Wikgren, “‘Patterns of Perfection in the Epistle to the Hebrews’’, NTS 6, 1959-60, 159-67; R. 
Schnackenburg, ‘“‘Christian Adulthood according to the Apostle Paul’’, CBQ 25, 1963, 254-370. 



(b). J. Blinzler, ‘“Vollkommenheit”, LTK X 863 f.; R. Bring, St7h 20, 1966, 1-36; G. Delling, 
“Zur Paulinischen Teleologie”’, TLZ 75, 1950, 12 ff.; J. Dupont, ‘‘ ‘Soyez parfaits’ (Mt. 5:48), 
‘Soyez miséricordieux’ (Lc. 6:36)”, Sacra Pagina 1959, 150-62; C. M. Edsman, A. Jepsen, R. 
Meyer, H. Conzelmann, H. Kraft, and P. Althaus, ‘“‘Eschatologie’’, RGG? II 650 ff.; F. Fliickiger, 
‘Christus, des Gesetzes Telos”, ThZ 11, 1955, 153-7; P. Hoffmann, “‘ Die Toten in Christus’’. Eine 
religionsgeschichtliche und exegetische Untersuchung zur Paulinischen Eschatologie, NTAbh Neue 
Folge 2, 1966; K. Karner, “Gegenwart und Endgeschichte in der Offenbarung des Johannes’’, 
TLZ 93, 1968, 641 ff.; B. Klappert, Die Eschatologie des Hebrderbriefes, ThEH 156, 1969; J. 
Kogel, ‘“‘Der Begriff teleioun im Hebraerbrief”, in Theologische Studien fiir Martin Kahler, 1905, 
35-68; H. Kosmala, Hebrder-Essener-Christen, 1959, 208-39; H. Kremers and R. Prenter, “‘Escha- 
tologie”, EKL I 1152 ff.; H. W. Kuhn, Enderwartung und gegenwartiges Heil, StUNT 4, 1966; 
W. G. Kimmel, “Die Eschatologie der Evangelien”, ThBl 15, 1936, 225 ff., reprinted in Heils- 
geschehen und Geschichte, 1965, 48 ff.; W. Lohff, “Telos”, RGG* VI 678 ff.; U. Luck, Die Vollkom- 
menheitsforderung der Bergpredigt, ThEH 150, 1968; R. Mach, Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch, 
1957; R. Mehl, “Vollkommenheit”’, RGG*® VI 1486 ff.; N. Messel, Die Einheitlichkeit der jiidischen 
Eschatologie, BZ AW 30, 1915; O. Michel, ‘“‘Die Lehre von der christlichen Vollkommenheit nach 
der Anschauung des Hebrderbriefs’’, ThStKr Neue Folge 1, 1934-35, 333-55; H. P. Miller, “‘Zur 
Frage nach dem Ursprung der biblischen Eschatologie”, Vetus Testamentum 14, 1964, 276 ff.; 
F. Notscher, Gotteswege und Menschenwege in der Bibel und in Qumran, 1958; and ‘‘Heiligkeit in 
den Qumranschriften”, Revue de Qumran 2, 1959-60, 163-81 and 315-44; O. Pléger, Theokratie 
und Eschatologie, WMANT 2, 1959; K. Primm, “Das neutestamentliche Sprach- und Begriffs- 
problem der Vollkommenheit”’, Biblica 44, 1963, 76 ff.; B. Rigaux, “Révélation des mystéres et 
perfection 4 Qumran et dans le Nouveau Testament”, NTS 4, 1957-58, 237-62; SB IV 799-1015; 
F. J. Schierse, Verheissung und Heilsvollendung. Zur theologischen Grundfrage des Hebrderbriefes, 
1955; H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief, 1930; R. Schnackenburg, “‘Die Voll- 
kommenheit des Christen nach den Evangelien”’, Geist und Leben 32, 1959, 420-33; E. E. Schneider, 
“Finis Legis Christus”, ThZ 20, 1964, 410-22; J. Schreiner, ‘‘Das Ende der Tage, Die Botschaft 
von der Endzeit in den alttestamentlichen Schriften”, BuL 5, 1964, 180 ff.; C. Spicgq, ‘‘La perfection 
chrétienne d’aprés |’Epitre aux Hébreux’”’, Mémorial J. Chaine, 1950, 337-52; G. Stahlin, ‘‘Fort- 
schritt und Wachstum. Zur Herkunft und Wandlung neutestamentlicher Ausdrucksformen’”’, 
Festgabe J. Lortz, Il, 1958, 13-25; W. Thising, Erhéhungsvorstellung und Parusieerwartung in der 
altesten Christologie, 1970; W. Volker, Fortschritt und Vollendung bei Philo von Alexandrien, TU 
49/1, 1938. 

God, Gods, Emmanuel 

[esi Oedc (theos), God; @esiocg (theios), divine; Oeidtnyc 

(theiotés), deity; Oedtnc (theotés), deity, divinity. 

cL The etymology of the Gk. word has not yet been clarified; the only thing that is 
certain is that it was originally a title. 

1. Gk. religion was polytheistic. The gods were represented in anthropomorphic 
form as personal beings who exercised a determining influence on the world and 
fate of men, but who themselves were dependent on a superior fate. As they were 
not creator-gods, they were not thought of as outside the universe and transcendent. 
The cosmos included both gods and men. The influence of the gods was not uni- — 
versal, but was limited by their natures and attributes. They were not — righteous 
in the OT sense. The Gk. gods had form. Consequently, the statement “‘God is 
spirit’’ (Jn. 4:24) could not be applied to them. From Aeschylus onwards the differ- — 
ent gods came increasingly to be identified. Their convergence into one divine | 
being was prepared by the pre-Socratic thinkers and the ideas of classical tragedy. | 

2. The Gk. philosophical understanding of god was non-personal. Philosophers | 
sought the origin of all things and the principle that shaped the world. In the process | 



of rationalizing and moralizing, brought about by philosophical criticism and 
reflection, an important transformation of the Gk. concept of god took place. The 
divine forms were spiritualized and finally replaced by general concepts like “world 
reason,” “‘the divine,’ and “being,” which influenced and formed the world as 
powers giving it meaning and creating order. In Hellenistic syncretism the various 
Gk. and non-Gk. divinities were assimilated and even equated as a result of the 
recognition that behind the diverse names stood the same entities. This is particu- 
larly clear in the Isis cult. Not infrequently these tendencies lead to the honouring 
of one godhead as the divine All. The development reached its height in Neo- 
Platonism, where the divine is the universal One which has no objective existence or 
personality. It is being itself which is manifested through a series of hypostases and 
emanations in the world, since it is the ground and force behind everything that is. 

oT The religion of the OT and Judaism is monotheistic and personal. 

1. In the OT the words ’é/, ’**/6ah and ’*lohim, from related roots, are generic 
designations of God. Alongside and alternating with them stands the individual, 
personal name Yahweh (cf. G. Quell, theos, TDNT III 79 ff.). The cult names formed 
with ’é/ are as a rule connected with local shrines. 

"el is a word common to all Semitic languages. It occurs as a common noun (the 
god, god) and also as the proper name for a particular god. This is clearly demon- 
strated in the texts from Ugarit in North Syria (14th century B.c.). It is true also 
of the Canaanites in the first and second millennia B.c. and the patriarchs, for 
whom ’é/ is clearly not the highest god in a pantheon, but the only God, whom 
they honoured on the basis of his revelation. He appears as ’é/ ‘ely6n, ““God Most 
High” (Gen. 14:18-22, RSV who was blessed by — Melchizedek); ’é/ rd’?, “God 
of Seeing’ (Gen. 16:13 RSV); ’é/ ‘6lam “the Everlasting God” (Gen. 21:33 RSV, 
so called by Abraham); ’é/ bét’él, ““God of Bethel” (Gen. 31:13; 35:7, so called 
by Jacob; Bethel meaning lit. “house of God”’); ’é/ ’*/6hé yisra’él, “God, the god 
of Israel’? (Gen. 33:20); and ’él Sadday, ““God Almighty” (Gen. 17:1; 28:3; 35:11; 
48:3; 49:25; Exod. 6:3). (On these titles see A. Alt, ““The God of the Fathers’’, 
in Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966, 3-66, especially 8 ff.) God 
is most frequently referred to as Saddai, Almighty, in Job where it is used along 
with El, Elohim, Eloah and Yahweh (cf. E. Dhorme, Job, 1967, lxv ff.). The shrine 
of Shechem seems to have been the first central shrine of the twelve united tribes 
(Jos. 24). 

¢lohim, though plur. in form, is seldom used in the OT as such (i.e. gods). Even 
a single heathen god can be designated with the plur. ’*/6him (e.g. Jdg. 11:24; 1 Ki. 
11:5; 2 Ki. 1:2). In Israel the plur. is understood as the plural of fullness; God is 
the God who really, and in the fullest sense of the word, is God. 

J. Schneider 

2. The origin and meaning of the divine name Yahweh has been the subject of 
considerable discussion. Some scholars derive it from a primitive form Yah which 
they regard as an interjection associated with the moon cult (cf. G. R. Driver, 
ZAW, 46, 1928, 24). It is suggested that it derives from Ya-huwa, meaning “‘O he”’ 
(cf. M. Buber, Moses, (1946) 1958, 49 f.; S. Mowinckel, ‘““The Name of the God of 
Moses,” Hebrew Union College Annual 32, 1961, 121-33). But this has been rejected 



on the grounds that to regard the name as an interjection makes it difficult to 
account for the religious content which faith has always found in the name and the 
revelatory value which is attached to it (cf. E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 
19643, 48). It is more likely that the name is connected with the verbal root hwy or 
hwh, meaning to be (cf. R. de Vaux, ““The Revelation of the Divine Name YHWH”’ 
in J. I. Durham and J. R. Porter, eds., Proclamation and Presence: Old Testament 
Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, 1970, 59 ff.; E. Jacob, op. cit., 50 f.; 
J. P. Hyatt, Exodus, 1971, 79; T. C. Vriezen, “’Ehje **Ser ’ehje’’, in W. Baumgart- 
ner et al., Festschrift Alfred Bertholet, 1950, 498-512). 

The only interpretation of the name Yahweh given in the OT is at the theophany 
of the burning bush (Exod. 3:13 ff. attributed to the E source or tradition). 
‘“‘Then Moses said to God, ‘If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, “‘The 
God of your fathers has sent me to you,”’ and they ask me, “What is his name ?”’ 
what shall I say to them?’ God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM [MT: ’ehyeh **Ser 
"ehyeh]’. And he said, ‘Say to this people of Israel, ‘I Am [’ehyeh] has sent me to 
you.’ ’’ God also said to Moses, ‘Say this to the people of Israel, “The Lorp [MT: 
YHWH], the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob, has sent me to you’’; this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be 
remembered throughout all generations’ ’’ (RSV). 

There has been considered debate as to the translation and meaning of the words 
-ehyeh **Ser ’ehyeh. This is partially reflected in the RSV mg alternative translations: 
‘Tt AM WHAT I AM” and “I WILL BE WHAT I WILL BE.” J. P. Hyatt lists five lines of 
interpretation (op. cit., 75 ff.). (4) That the reply is intentionally evasive, because it is 
God’s nature to remain hidden, or because to know God’s name might give man 
power over him. But against this is the fact that the name is revealed to Moses in 
v. 15. (ii) God is the eternally existent one. (iii) “I am because I am.” This suggests 
that there is no cause for God’s existence outside himself. (iv) “I will be what I will 
be,” or “I will be what I intend to be.” (v) “I am he who is,” or “I am the one who 
is.” He is the God who alone has real existence. For discussion of the syntax 
involved in this translation see E. Schild, Vetus Testamentum 4, 1954, 296-302; J. 
Lindblom, Annual of the Swedish Theological Institute, III 1964, 4-15; B. Albrektson 
“On the Syntax of ’hyh ’Sr ’hyh in Exodus 3:14,” in P. R. Ackroyd, and B. Lindars, 
eds., Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas, 1968, 15-28. 

R. de Vaux holds that the best rendering of the formula is “I am He who Exists” 
(op. cit., 71). Yahweh is the God whom Israel must recognize as really existing. 
This is not presented as part of a metaphysic of being (cf. Thomas Aquinas, 
Summa Theologiae I, Q. 2 art. 3). In the context of Exodus the revelation of the 
divine name is a proclamation to Israel of the one with whom they have to do. 
God is calling his people out of — Egypt and promises to be with Moses for that 
purpose (Exod. 3:10 ff.; 4:12; 15, 22 f.; 6:2 f.; cf. J. A. Motyer, The Revelation 
of the Divine Name, 1959). The proclamation of the Decalogue begins with the 
words: “J am Yahweh’’ (Exod. 20:2; cf. Deut. 6:5). The first commandment 
requires exclusive worship and service (Exod. 20:3, cf. 5). When Moses sought 
God’s presence, he was not permitted to see God’s — face but nevertheless re- — 
ceived the reply: “I will make all my goodness pass before you, and will proclaim | 
before you my name Yahweh; and [ will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, © 
and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy” (Exod. 33:19). The God who © 



thus reveals himself to Moses and to Israel is distinct from the deities of Egypt and 
Canaan with their fertility rites concerned with the cycle of nature. He remains a 
mystery, and yet he is graciously active in the history of his people. 

It is possible that the name of Yahweh existed outside Israel prior to Moses, but 
there is no conclusive proof (for a review of evidence see R. de Vaux, op. cit., 
49-56; E. Jacob, op. cit., 48 ff.). Nevertheless, Exod. 3 does not appear to give a 
new name for the first time but the explanation of a name known already but now 
identified as that of the saving God of Israel. Although Israel did not work out a 
metaphysical doctrine of — time, the idea of God as “He who Is”’ is paralleled by 
numerous other statements about God in the OT (Pss. 90:1; 102:27 f.; Hab. 1:2; 
Exod. 30:8; Isa. 41:4; 48:12). But the thought of time is also bound up with that of 
Yahweh’s ongoing presence (Gen. 20:28; Jos. 3:7; Jdg. 6:12; Isa. 49:6, 26; cf. E. 
Jacob, op. cit., 52). 

The Heb. name YHWH s°ba’é6t, Lord of hosts, occurs some 279 times. It is absent 
from the Pentateuch, Jos. and Jdg., but is frequent in the prophets (especially Isa. 
1-39 [54 times]; Jer. [77 times]; and Zech. 1-8 [44 times]). The hosts in question 
have been variously interpreted as the earthly armies of Israel, the armies of the 
stars, and the celestial armies of spirits and angels. E. Jacob relates the title to the 
ark of the — covenant accompanied by the armies of Israel in battle (1 Sam. 17:45; 
2 Sam. 6:2, 18; 7:2, 8, 26 f.; 1 Chr. 17:7; cf. op. cit., 55). He notes that it is found 
most frequently among the prophets for whom Yahweh was above all a warrior 
God. It is not simply a case of the prophets transferring the hosts from the terrestrial 
to the celestial plane. The term refers to the totality of forces over which Yahweh 
rules. But possibly the term also had polemical overtones, directed against the cult 
of the stars and spirits, claiming by its use that Yahweh also controlled them. 
In the LXX the term is translated by kyrios pantokrator, ~ Lord Almighty (2 
Sam. [2 Ki.] 5:10; 7:8, 25 ff.; cf. Jer. 3:19; Hos. 12:6; Amos 3:18; 4:13; 5:14; 
Zeph. 2:10; 2 Macc. 8:18; 3 Macc. 6:2; Arndt, 613 f.) and basileus ton dynameon, 
—> king of powers (Ps. 67:13 LXX). The term pantokrator is taken up by 2 Cor. 
6:18; Rev. 1:8; 4:8; 11:17; 15:3; 16:7, 14; 19:15; 21:22. The Gk. transcription 
sabaoth (which occurs some 65 times in the LXX and other versions) is twice used 
in the NT (Rom. 9:29 = Isa. 1:9; Jas. 5:4; cf. Arndt, 746). 

The name of Yahweh was combined with various Heb. verbs to form proper 
names: e.g. Jehoiachin (Yahweh establishes, from Yahweh and kin), Jonathan 
(Yahweh gives, from Yahweh and natan), and Joshua (Yahweh is salvation, from 
Yahweh and Sta‘ or yéstia‘). The latter is the oldest name containing Yahweh 
(Koehler-Baumgartner, 370). M. H. Segal sees in its early existence evidence that 
the name Yahweh was known prior to the revelation to Moses (The Pentateuch, 
1967, 4). Joshua is the Heb. form which underlies the name of — Jesus. 

The form Jehovah arose out of a misunderstanding which in turn arose out of the 
reluctance of pious Jews to pronounce the divine name (c. 300 B.c.). Instead they 
uttered the word **donady, my Lord. In the MT the divine name was written with the 
consonants of YHWH and the vowels of **déndy, as a reminder to say the latter 
whenever the word was read. The divine name appears as y*howah in the MT. The 
LXX reflects the Jewish reluctance to pronounce the divine name and puts the word 
kyrios, — Lord, in its place. The RSV and other Eng. versions also reflect the prac- 
tice by giving the word Lorp in capital letters whenever the name YHW#H stands 



in the text. The Lat. likewise gives the word Dominus, Lord, for YHWH. The form 
Jehovah is thus a malformation giving what is virtually a transliteration of a word 
which is found in the text of the Heb. OT, but which was never actually used as a 
word. Jt became current in the sixteenth century and is attested in the Lat. of P. 
Galatinus in the form lehoua (De Arcanis Cath. Veritatis, 1516, II, 1 f., xlviii). 
In 1530 Tyndale used Jehouah in his translation of Exod. 6:3 (Wycliffe had Adonay). 
Subsequently Jehovah became the standard spelling. But — also Lord, art. kyrios 
OT 2. C. Brown 

It was only in the course of history that the belief in the superiority of Israel’s 
God over all other gods led to the development of absolute monotheism. Jeremiah 
was probably the first to support the proposition that the gods of the heathen are 
no gods (Jer. 2:11). This knowledge was first given full expression in Isa. 40:55. 
The God of Israel is the Lord of all, whose sovereign power fills all the earth (Isa. 
6:3). There are no gods apart from the One (Isa. 41:4; 42:8; 43:10 ff.; 45:3, 6; 
48:11). (See further H. H. Rowley, The Re-Discovery of the Old Testament, 1945, 
77-93; G. E. Wright, The Old Testament against its Environment, 1950, 9-41; C. F. 
Whitley, The Prophetic Achievement, 1963, 93-128.) 

3. The LXX is characterized by the Hellenizing of Israelite-Jewish monotheism 
and by the reduction of the designations of God. Thus the Heb. words ’él, ’*loah 
and ’*/6him are as a rule rendered by theos, ““God’’, and in exceptional cases by 
kyrios, ‘“‘Lord’’, or other expressions. Apart from theos and kyrios, ’él is translated 
about 20 times by ischyros, “Mighty One’’, ““Powerful One’’, otherwise by dynamis 
“Might”, ““Power” (Neh. 5:5), or dynastés “‘Prince’’, ‘““Ruler’’, ““Potentate”’ (Sir. 
46:5, 6). The name Yahweh or Yah, which is mostly translated by kyrios, is re- 
placed by theos only about 330 times (G. Quell, TDNT II 79). 

4. The OT contains no all-embracing definition of the concept of God. On the 
other hand, it makes an extensive range of statements which testify to the being of 
God and have their basis in the divine revelation. Nor is there in the OT any theo- 
gony; it does not go beyond the assertion that God is. He is the first and the last 
(Isa. 41:4; 44:6; 48:12), the eternal], the almighty and the living one (Ps. 36:10), the 
creator of heaven and earth (Gen. 1:1; 2.4, etc.); the Lord, who guides the destinies 
of the nations, but who has made — Israel a people for his own possession (Exod. 
19:5f.). Israel stands, therefore, under his special protection. Yahweh not only 
leads, guides and gives Israel his promises; he also imposes his judgments when he 
goes his own way. God is the commanding and demanding God who makes his 
will known and demands obedience. The history of Israel is the history of God with 
this —> people. Thus Israel’s belief in God is founded on a theology of history. 

It expresses a conception of God as personal, that God is capable of all the emo- 
tions that a person can have: — love, + anger, — repentance and other emotions. 
But even if human characteristics can be attributed to him, he cannot be compared 
with any human being (Hos. 11:9). The transcendent God who dwells in light, 
where no one can approach, is exalted above time and space and is therefore 
unique in his Godhead, not to be portrayed or localized (cf. Exod. 20:4). He is the 
eternal —> king (Isa. 52:7) who rules over all the > kingdoms of the world (Isa. 

The most fundamental feature of God’s being is expressed by the word — 
‘holy’. In the OT this has become the characteristic attribute of God. He is the 


Holy One (Isa. 40:25; Hab. 3:3; Hos 11:9). But the holy, transcendent God steps 
out of his concealment through his word and his acts of revelation, and repeatedly 
communicates with his people in demonstrations of power and glory. 

The holy God is just in all that he does (cf. Ps. 7:11). He is the — judge who 
condemns unrighteousness and to whom man has to answer. But the OT also 
testifies to his > grace and > mercy (e.g. Exod. 34:6; Ps. 103:8). He comforts 
the pious (Job 15:11), — blesses him and helps him in his need (Pss. 45:7; 90:1; 
94:22). Through the personal relationship between God and his people there is 
created an J-Thou relation between God and the individual believer who can turn 
to him in — prayer in all his needs. 

God in the OT is also called — Father; he is the father of the people of — Israel 
(Exod. 4:22 f.; Deut. 32:6; Isa. 63:16; Jer. 31:9; Hos. 11:1). However, a full 
knowledge of the divine grace and love which embraces the whole world is only 
arrived at through the revelation of the new — covenant. Nevertheless, the OT 
testifies to the fact that God forgives transgressions and — sins (Exod. 34:6 f.). 
He has mercy on his people in everlasting grace (Isa. 54:8), and in particular 
takes up the cause of the poor and needy, and widows and orphans (Isa. 49:13; 
Ps. 146:9). Therefore, even in the OT God is not just a dreaded — enemy of man 
in his unholiness; he also makes it possible for him both to trust and love, because 
he himself loves his chosen people. 

5. Judaism confessed the one God in unswerving loyalty and fought passionately 
against pagan polytheism. But it saw the one God working in a multitude of 
mediatorial and — angelic beings. Dualistic concepts were taken up in apocalyptic 
writings. It was this, E. Stauffer argues, that gave the fundamental monotheistic 
conviction of the OT the character of a “dynamic monotheism” (TDNT III 96). 

The rabbis laid great stress on avoiding the name of God; in its place they put a 
whole system of substitute terms: e.g. — Heaven (ha-Samayim or Samayim), the 
—+ Lord (“doéna@y) and later the > Name (ha-sém) (cf. K. G. Kuhn, TDNT III 
92 ff.). In addition there were abstract terms like Glory, Power and the Abode (of 

6. The Essenes of the Qumran community took over a cosmological dualism 
which was probably influenced by Zoroastrianism: e.g. God and Belial, —light 
and darkness, — Spirit of truth and Spirit of falsehood. To this corresponds the 
anthropological opposition of — flesh and spirit, the pious and the godless, sons 
of light and sons of darkness. However, the dualism of the two spirits that rule the 
world is subordinated to the fundamental OT, Jewish idea of God as the creator 
of all things. For he created the spirits of light and of darkness which lie at the 
basis of his working (1QS 3:25; cf. 3:19-26). 

The Qumran texts give a series of designations of God. God is not only the crea- 
tor of the world and of men, but also in a special way the “God of Israel’? (1QM 
1:9 f.; 14:4; 18:6), the “Father of the sons of truth’? (LQH 9:35). His majesty 
and glory are expressed in his being called the “Prince of gods,” the ““King of 
majesties,” the “Ruler of all creatures’’ (1QH 10:8), the “Highest” or the“‘Highest 
of all’? (QS 4:22; 1QGen Ap 2:4; 20:12), the ‘“‘“God of gods’ (LQM 14:16), the 
“King of kings” (ibid.), the ‘Ruler over all the kings of the earth’ (1 QGen Ap 20:13). 
He is the “God of knowledge” (1QS 3:15; 1QH 1:26), full of deep and unfathom- 
able secrets (1QS 11:5; 1QH 10:3; 12:13), who hides all wisdom within himself 



(1QH 12:10) and thus is the foundation of knowledge (1QS 10:12). The eternal 
God (1QH 13:13) is wise (1QH 9:17), just (1QH 11:7, 18; 14:15), all his deeds are 
just (1QH 13:19), the True (1QH 15:25) and Holy (1QM 19:1), but also the God 
who is full of grace, favour, goodness and mercy (1QH 4:32, 37; 7:30 f.; 9:34; 
10:14, 16; 11:29), who forgives sins and by his righteousness cleanses men from 
their guilt and from the “terrors of falsehood’’ (1QH 4:37; cf. 1QS 11:14; 1QHFr 
2:13). He is the source of judgments (1QS 10:18) and acts of grace (1QS 10:16) 
found in history and the life of individuals. 

All this is experienced by the pious who belong to the sons of light. Through the 
grace and goodness of God they receive — justification and atonement (1QS 11: 
13 f.). But above all they have received through revelation and instruction, the 
—> mysteries of God and of his mighty acts which are otherwise hidden from men 
(1QH 11:9f., 17). 

The Qumran doctrine of God stands out as being rigidly deterministic. God’s 
actions are determined by a fixed plan (1QS 3:15; 11:11; 1QH 18:22). Nothing 
happens apart from his will (1QS 3:15; 11:17, 19; 1QH 1:20; 10:9), for all au- 
thority is in his power. 

This is especially true for the personal life of the individual. The pious poet 
acknowledges, ‘““Thou hast not cast my lot in the congregation of vanity, nor hast 
thou placed my portion in the council of the cunning” (1QH 7:34). “Thou hast 
known me from [the time of] my father [and hast chosen me] from the womb” 
(1QH 9:30). His hand leads him at all times and his just rebuke accompanies 
all his perversity (1QH 9:32 f.). He can only speak because God opens his mouth 
(1QH 11:33). All his thinking and planning is determined by God (1QH 10:5 f.). 

The eschatological statements of Qumran are also strongly characterized by 
determinism. God created the righteous for eternal salvation and lasting peace, 
but the “perverse” for the time of his wrath (1QH 14:15 ff.); from their mother’s 
womb they were “‘dedicated to the Day of Massacre”’ (ibid., 15:17). The “lot” of 
Belial will bring judgment to eternal destruction (1QM 1:5); all ‘“‘men of lies” will 
be destroyed (1QH 4:20). 

The influence of the Qumran texts on the NT has been greatly overestimated. 
In the case of the doctrine of God, at any rate, no real connections are to be found. 
Primitive Christianity is much more independent in the expression of its theological 
thought than is often accepted. (This is true also of the cases when it has borrowed 
Jewish apocalyptic and gnostic concepts as vehicles for primitive Christian theo- 
logy and preaching.) 

7. Philo’s concept of God has been affected by his attempt to link the OT idea 
of Yahweh with the Platonic-Stoic idea of God. When he speaks of the God of | 
Israel, he distinguishes between ho theos and ho kyrios. ho theos is the good God, 
the Creator; ho kyrios the kingly Lord of the world. By omitting the definite article 
and speaking of theos he indicates the “second God,” the Word. Philo also makes 
extensive use of the philosophical concept of to theion, the divine. For Philo God is 
fully transcendent and also the active power in everything. He produces out of | 
himself the original, typical ideas, and forms them into the visible world. The Word | 
is his mediator for creation and revelation. (See further H. A. Wolfson, Religious © 
Philosophy, 1961; and Philo: Foundations of Religious’ Philosophy in Judaism, © 
Christianity and Islam, I-Il, 1962.) 



NT The NT rests firmly on the foundation of the OT, when it speaks about God, 

but its emphases are new. He is the God who is near, the Father of Jesus Christ 
who justifies freely by his grace (cf. the Pauline concept of the — righteousness of 
God). His action in election bursts all claims to exclusiveness. But it is the same 
God who reveals himself here as in the OT, and whose plan of salvation, there 
promised, comes to fulfilment here. 

1. The one God. (a) theos is the most frequent designation of God in the NT. 
Belief in the one, only and unique God (Matt. 23:9; Rom. 3:30; 1 Cor. 8:4, 6; 
Gal. 3:20; 1 Tim. 2:5; Jas. 2:19) is an established part of primitive Christian 
tradition. Jesus himself made the fundamental confession of Judaism his own and 
expressly quoted the Shema (Deut. 6:4 f.; Mk. 12:29 f.; cf. Matt. 22:37; Lk. 10:27). 
This guaranteed continuity between the old and the new covenant. For the 
God whom Christians worship is the God of the fathers (Acts 3:13; 5:30; 22:14), 
the God of — Abraham, of — Isaac and of — Jacob (Acts 3:13; 7:32; cf. Matt. 
22:32; Mk. 12:26; Lk. 20:37), the God of Israel (Matt. 15:31; Lk. 1:68; Acts 
13:17; cf. 2 Cor. 6:16; Heb. 11:16), and the God of — Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 1:3; 
Eph. 1:3; 1 Pet. 1:3). Just as God once made — Israel his — people, so now he 
has chosen those who believe in Christ as an elect race and a holy people for his 
possession (Acts 15:14; 20:28; 1 Pet. 2:9; Heb. 11:25). — Faith is in him (Rom. 
4:3; Gal. 3:6; Tit. 3:8; Jas. 2:23; Heb. 6:1; 1 Pet. 1:21), ~ hope is on him (Acts 
24:15; Rom. 4:18; 2 Cor. 3:4; 1 Pet. 3:5), and — prayer is to him. The community 
of Jesus may have no false gods beside him, whether Mammon (Matt. 6:24), 
the — “belly” (Phil. 3:19) or the cosmic powers (Gal. 4:8 ff.). It must serve him 
alone, do his will and remain faithful to him. 

(b) Confession of the one God appears in Eph. 4:6 in an expanded form (“‘one 
God and Father of us all, who is above all and through and in all’), which glorifies, 
no doubt under Jewish-Hel. influence, the omnipresence of the rule of God. 
Similar formulae, referring now to God, now to Christ, occur in Rom. 11:36 and 
1 Cor. 8:6. (See further J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 19727, 1-29; O. 
Cullmann, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1949; V. H. Neufeld, The Earliest 
Christian Confessions, 1963; E. Stauffer, New Testament Theology, 1955, 244 ff.) 

(c) The one God is the living and only true God (Rom. 3:30; Gal. 3:20; 1 Thess. 
1:9; 1 Tim. 1:17; 2:5; Jude 25; cf. Jn. 17:3). He is the God whom the 
heathen do not know (1 Thess. 4:5). It is true that Paul reckons with the existence 
of ‘‘so-called’”’ gods, who have authority as demonic powers over the heathen, but 
for the Christians there is only the one God (1 Cor. 8:5 f.). Even if the honour and 
power of gods does not belong to the stoicheia (—> Law, article stoicheia) which the 
Galatians previously worshipped, they can still intrude divisively between the young 
congregation and their God (Gal. 4:8 f.). 

This one God is called “‘our God” (Acts 2:39; 2 Pet. 1:1; Rev. 4:11; 7:12; 19:5). 
The individual believer, above all Paul, can speak quite personally of him as his 
God (Rom. 1:8; 1 Cor. 1:4; 2 Cor. 12:21; Phil. 1:3; 4:19; Phlm. 4). Belief in the 
one God involves turning away from all heathen ways. Therefore in missionary 
preaching testimony to God is linked with the struggle against the worship of false 
gods (Acts 14:15; 17:24 f.; 19:26). 

(d) The Epistles and especially Acts give a partial picture of the excesses of the 
NT world and their local expression. According to Acts, Paul was painfully 



impressed in Athens by the many figures of gods and shrines which he saw as he went 
through the city (Acts 17:16, 23). Just how strongly the cult of Artemis dominated 
the religious life of Ephesus is clear from the impressive account in Acts 19:23-41. 
(On the background to this see E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 571 ff.) 
Here things came to a head through a violent clash with the silversmiths who 
derived great profit from making little models of the temple of Artemis and felt 
their economic existence threatened by Paul’s preaching. 1 Cor. 8:1-7 indicates 
the significance of sacrificial meals in the heathen cultus at Corinth. — Magic 
played an important part in Hel. times; in Acts it is mentioned in 8:9 (Samaria), 
13:6 (Cyprus) and 19:13 ff. (Ephesus). In Ephesus, as a result of the powerful 
testimony borne to the Christian message of salvation, the books of magic were 
publicly burned (Acts 19:19). (See further below, section 9.) 

Conversion to the true and living God was experienced by those who had become 
believers as a gift of grace; for they had been freed from bondage to false gods 
(1 Thess. 1:9). But for many Christians the fascinating power of the heathen cults 
had not entirely lost its force. Therefore Paul explained to the Corinthians, “I do 
not want you to be partners with demons” (1 Cor. 10:20), for the heathen presented 
their sacrifices to demonic beings and not to God (see further C. K. Barrett, The 
First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1968, 236 ff.). 

2. The transcendent God. (a) God is the creator, sustainer and Lord of the world 
(Acts 17:24; Rev. 10:6), the master-builder of all things (Heb. 3:4). He exercises 
his lordship from — heaven, for heaven is his throne and the earth his footstool 
(Matt. 5:34; 23:22; Acts 7:49). He is the Almighty with whom nothing is im- 
possible (Mk. 10:27). No one can hinder, let alone destroy, his work (Acts 5:39; cf. 
2 Tim. 2:9). He is the highest (Mk. 5:7; Lk. 1:32; Acts 7:48; 16:17; Heb. 7:1), 
the great — king (Matt. 5:35), the king of the nations (Rev. 15:3). 

(b) Prayer is a powerful witness to belief in the transcendent God, for — prayer 
is directed to God who is in heaven (Matt. 6:9; cf. Jn. 17:1), but who hears the 
suppliant here. At present the — Satanic and demonic powers still stand opposed 
to God’s rule on earth. Therefore the congregation of Jesus prays for the full 
revelation of his basileia (— kingdom), for the full accomplishment of his will 
(“on earth as it is in heaven,’’ Matt. 6:10), and for the hallowing of his > name 
(Matt. 6:9). In Jesus the kingdom of God has already broken in; it has been 
demonstrated by his powerful and wonderful acts. He has broken into Satan’s 
realm and driven out demons by the “finger of God’”’ (Lk. 11:20); but only the age 
to come will bring the full establishment of the kingdom of God. Then Christ will 
conquer the powers opposed to God (1 Cor. 15:24; 2 Thess. 2:8; Rev. 21:8, 27). 
When he has completed this his last task, God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). 

3. The personal character of God. When speaking about the personal character of 
God, it is illegitimate to transfer to God the concept of the human personality. 
God must not be imagined to possess a limiting — form. On the other hand, we 
are only capable of speaking of him in concepts which belong to our categories of 
thought. Moreover, if the personal character of God is ignored or restricted, the 
meaning of revelation is drastically changed. A depersonalized God is not the 
God of the NT. 

The God to whom the NT testifies is the God who speaks and acts; he reveals 
himself through word and deed. He works in sovereign, absolute power (Jn. 5:17). 



He makes his will known in > command and demand, and brings everything to 
the — goal that he has — determined. After he had spoken in the old — covenant 
in many ways to the fathers in the prophets, he has spoken in these last days “‘to 
us” through the Son, who reflects his — glory and bears the very stamp of his 
nature (Heb. 1:1 ff.). In the preaching of the word he addresses every man per- 
sonally and receives into his — fellowship all who believe on Jesus. There are 
countless illustrations of this I-Thou relationship in the NT; it is the distinguishing 
mark of genuine biblical piety. Without it Christian belief in God would lack its 
ultimate depth. 

(b) It belongs to the personal character of God that he is — Spirit (Jn. 4:24). 
Activities of the Spirit and of power proceed from him. The Spirit of God descended 
on Jesus at his —> baptism (Matt. 3:16; cf. 12:18). Filled by this Spirit, he worked 
as the messiah sent by God. Matt. 12:28 states explicitly that he cast out the 
evil spirits through the Spirit of God. Christians are characterized by having, not 
the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God (1 Cor. 2:12), for the natural 
man does not understand anything that comes from the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 
2:14f.). Only the spiritual man is capable of knowing God (1 Cor. 2:11) and of 
penetrating the depths of God. God has revealed his secret wisdom to believers 
through his Spirit (1 Cor. 2:10). He dwells in them and thus becomes the formative 
power of their being (1 Cor. 2:11). 

In this age limits are imposed on the believer’s knowledge. In God’s rule over 
salvation history there are “‘times and seasons’ of true revelation which he has 
reserved for himself (Mk. 13:32; Acts 1:7; 1 Thess. 5:2), ‘judgments’ which are 
incomprehensible and “‘ways’’ which are unsearchable (Rom. 11:33). Nevertheless, 
—> mysteries, which have been hidden in God from the beginning of time until 
now, have been made known through the proclamation of the message of salvation. 
The apostolic ministry, given by grace, testifies to the world of the unfathomable 
riches of Christ. Through the Christian community the knowledge about God’s 
manifold wisdom has penetrated even as far as the cosmic powers (Eph. 3: 8-10). 
Paul saw himself as the custodian of the mysteries of God (1 Cor. 4:1). 

In 1 Cor. 6:11 the apostle explains that the Spirit of God (in conjunction with 
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ) has washed, sanctified and justified Christians. 
Through the divine Spirit working in them they are no longer in the realm of the 
—> flesh but in that of the Spirit. Hence they live according to the Spirit (Rom. 

True confession of Christ is brought about by the Spirit of God (Rom. 10:9; 
1 Cor. 12:3; cf. Matt. 16:17). In situations of suffering he gives the word that is 
necessary for the defence of and witness to the gospel (Matt. 10:20). He rests on 
those who are abused on account of the name of Christ (1 Pet. 4:14). 

(c) The personal character of God finds special expression in the confession of 
God as-— Father. Jesus’ relationship to God is essentially determined by his 
Father—Son relationship. As the “only-begotten”’ Son, he is bound to God in a 
special way, as Jn.’s use of the monogenés is intended to show (cf. Jn. 1:14, 18; 3:16, 
18; 1 Jn. 4:9). ([Ed.] Lit. the Gk. means “‘of a single [monos] kind [genos].’’ While 
genos is distantly related to gennan, beget — Birth, there is little linguistic justifica- 
tion for translating monogenés as “‘only begotten.”’ The latter practice originated 
with Jerome who translated it by the Lat. unigenitus to emphasize Jesus’ divine 



origin in answer to Arianism. The word monogenés reflects the Heb. yahid, only, 
precious [Gen. 22:2, 12, 16, of Isaac], and is used in Heb. 11:17 of Isaac who was 
unique in the sense of being the sole son of promise, but who was not the only son 
whom Abraham begat. Perhaps the word may best be translated as “‘unique’’. Jn. 
clearly intends to distinguish Jesus’ unique relationship with the Father from that 
of others who become children of God through him [cf. Jn. 1:14 with v. 13]. For 
further discussion see Arndt, 528; D. Moody, JBL 72, 1953, 213-19; R. E. Brown, 
The Gospel According to John, I, 1966, 13 f.) 

In — prayer Jesus called God “Abba, Father’? (Mk. 14:36) or — ‘“‘Father”’ 
(Matt. 11:25 f.; Lk. 23:24; Jn. 11:41; 17:1; 5, 11). At other times he spoke of him 
as his heavenly Father (e.g. Matt. 10:33; 16:17). Jn. emphasizes the Father-Son 
relationship between God and Jesus (about 80 times) more strongly than the 
Synoptics (but see the fuller version of Peter’s confession of Christ in Matt. 16:16 ff. 
par. Mk. 8:29, Lk. 9:20; cf. Jn. 6:68 f.). Jesus also gave his disciples the right 
to approach God with the invocation “our Father” (Matt. 6:9; Lk. 11:2). In the 
quiet room at home the individual may pray personally to his Father (Matt. 6:4, 
6, 18). The name “‘Father”’ is applied to God in illustrations and parables (e.g. Lk. 
15:11 ff.). As Father, God is the God who is near to whom man can turn in 
believing trust with all his petitions. Moreover, God is the sustainer of the creatures 
he has made. He receives them with fatherly goodness and surrounds them with 
his care (Matt. 6:26-32; 10:29-31). 

The NT epistles use the solemn, confessional formula ‘“‘the God and Father of 
our Lord Jesus Christ’? (Rom. 15:6; 2 Cor. 1:3; Eph. 1:3; Col. 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3). 
In Christ believers are related to God as children. His Spirit testifies to them that 
they are God’s children (Rom. 8:16). Therefore, in prayer they too may cry 
‘“‘Abba, Father’ (Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15). This is a gift of grace procured through 
the Spirit of the Son of God. 

The idea of the children of God takes on a special colouring in 1 John. Here the 
statements are no longer determined, as in Paul, by the concept of adoption, of 
being received into the place of a child, but by that of begetting (— Birth, art. 
gennao). Christians are God’s children because they have been begotten by God 
(1 Jn. 3:9; cf. 2:29; 4:7). This means that the origin of their new being is to be 
found solely in God (1 Jn. 4:4). With this are linked statements of a mystical 
nature. John knew not only a Christ-mysticism but also a God-mysticism. There is 
true fellowship with God only when Christians abide in God and when God 
abides in them (1 Jn. 4:16). But as God is love, this means abiding in love. Out of 
this deep, inner relationship with God arises a completely new, concrete, ethical 
obligation: love of the brethren which must lead to practical aid (1 Jn. 3:16 f.). 

4. The attributes of God. (a) In the NT there is no fixed, systematically ordered 
doctrine of the attributes of God. But there is a wealth of allusions, especially in 
expressions of prayer and faith and in descriptions of divine acts. More rare than 
in the OT but nevertheless present are allusions to the — holiness of God (Jn. 
17:11; 1 Pet. 1:15; Rev. 3:7; 4:8; 15:4), his (present and future) wrath (— Anger) 
(Rom. 1:18; 2:5; 9:22; Eph. 5:6; 1 Thess. 1:10; Rev. 6:17; 11:18; 14:10), and 
his glory (Acts 7:2; Rom. 1:23; 6:4; Eph. 3:16; 1 Thess. 2:12; Tit. 2:13; Rev. 
15:8; 21:11, 23). It is otherwise in the case of the kingly rule of God (— Kingdom), 
which in the Synoptic Gospels forms the centre of Jesus’ preaching, but which in the 



proclamation of the apostles withdraws into the background in favour of the 
message of Christ. Only once is God called te/eios, in the sense of moral perfection 
(Matt. 5:48, — Goal). The — will of God is spoken of more often (as commanding, 
demanding and gracious); his mysterious counsel (Acts 20:27) and plan of salva- 
tion (Eph. 1:3-11) are also spoken of. Paul strongly emphasizes the faithfulness of 
God (Rom. 3:3; 1 Cor. 1:9; 10:13; cf. 2 Cor. 1:18). God abides by his — promises 
and fulfils them (Rom. 9:6 ff.; — Fullness, art. p/érod). For Israel this means that 
God’s gifts of grace and their election by God are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). God 
does not lie (Heb. 6:18; cf. Tit. 1:2); he is utterly true and his testimony is absolutely 
valid (Jn. 3:33). 

(b) God is the eternal (Rom. 16:26) and only wise God (Rom. 16:27). Beside 
these expressions stand others which are to be found in contemporary philoso- 
phical language. Thus God is described as the invisible (Rom. 1:20; Col. 1:15 f.; 
1 Tim. 1:17; Heb. 11:27) and the immortal (Rom. 1:23; 1 Tim. 1:17). In 1 Tim. 
1:11 and 6:15 he is called by an attribute taken over from Hellenistic Judaism, the 
‘blessed’? God. The doxology in 1 Tim. 6:15 f. is reminiscent of the prayers of the 
Hellenistic synagogue (for a review of background ideas see C. Spica, Les Epitres 
Pastorales, 1947, 200 f.). It confesses God in solemn words as the only Sovereign, 
the King of kings, the Lord of lords, who alone is immortal, who dwells in un- 
approachable light and whom no man has ever seen nor can see. 

Paul’s description of God in the Areopagus speech (Acts 17:24) also betrays 
Hellenistic influence. It uses Isa. 42:5 freely and has affinities with Seneca, Ep. 
41, 3 (cf. E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 522; cf. also 2 Ki. 19:18; 
Dan. 5:4 LXX; Wis. 13:10). God created the world and everything that is in the 
world. The Lord of heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made by human 
hands. Nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he 
himself gives to all beings life and breath and everything else. Though some of 
these expressions may sound strange today, Paul was concerned to testify to the 
true and living God in terms that were relevant to his day. This is the God whom the 
heathen of Athens worshipped, more unconsciously than consciously, and to 
whom they had erected an altar with the inscription ““To an unknown god [agnoésté 
thed|” (Acts 17:23). (E. Norden interpreted this as a reference to the unknown God 
of Gnosis in Agnostos Theos, 1913, 57 ff., but this is generally recognized as in- 
correct [cf. E. Haenchen, op. cit., 521, and also Arndt, 12]). The apostle could even 
press into service for his missionary task the words of a Greek poet which carry 
the stamp of pantheistic mysticism, “In him [God] we live and move and have our 
being’? (Epimenides); “We are his offspring’ (Aratus, Phaenomena 5; cf. Acts 
17:28; see also below, section 9). ([Ed.] For Paul, man had a natural awareness of 
God which was consonant with the revelation of God in the OT and Christian 
experience. This knowledge is sufficient to show the error of identifying God with 
any finite thing or creature. Paul does not argue that man may arrive at such a 
conclusion as the result of a metaphysical proof. Man has this awareness already, 
and reflection on the finite character of the natural order should be sufficient to 
tell him that God is not to be identified with anything or anyone within that order 
[Acts 14:17; Rom. 1:19 ff., 32; and possibly Rom. 2:12-16, though this last 
passage may well refer to Gentile believers who have responded to the gospel 
without having had the law and who thus fulfil the promise of the new covenant of 



Jer. 31:31 ff.]. For further discussion see N. B. Stonehouse, Paul before the Areo- 
pagus and Other New Testament Studies, 1957, 1-40; H. P. Owen, “The Scope of 
Natural Revelation in Rom. | and Acts 17,” NTS 5, 1958-9, 133-43; C. Brown, 
Karl Barth and the Christian Message, 1967, 94-98; and the literature listed by E. 
Haenchen, op. cit., 516.) 

(c) A central concept in Paul’s theology is the — righteousness of God (Rom. 
1:17, 21 f.; 9:30; 10:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 3:9). It is a judging but also a saving 
righteousness. God is just when he condemns sinful mankind. But he is equally 
just when he bestows his forgiving grace on those who have believed in Christ and 
in the salvation procured through him. For Christ’s sake, in whom God himself 
offered the atoning sacrifice for the — guilt of mankind, he does not count their 
sins against them but pronounces them righteous. Thus the dikaiosyné theou forms 
the foundation of Paul’s doctrine of — justification (cf. L. Morris, The Apostolic 
Preaching of the Cross, 1963*, 273 ff.; D. Hill, Greek Words and Hebrew Meanings, 
1967, 82-162). 

(d) Because God is the initiator of salvation, both he and Christ are called sétér, 
saviour (1 Tim. 1:1; 2:3; 4:10; Tit. 1:3; 2:13; 3:4). God sent his Son into the world 
(Gal. 4:4) and delivered him to death for us (Jn. 3:16; 1 Jn. 4:10; cf. Rom. 8:32). 
The saving act of God is proclaimed through the word of the cross which is under- 
stood by believers as God’s power and God’s wisdom (1 Cor. 1:18, 24). For Christ 
has been made by God our — wisdom, righteousness, sanctification (— Holy) and 
—»> redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). 

Paul can call the whole message of salvation, declared to the world, the > 
“gospel of God” (Rom. 15:16; 1 Thess. 2:2; 1 Tim. 1:11; cf. also 1 Pet. 4:17). It 
brings salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16; cf. 1 Cor. 2:5). At the same 
time the offer of salvation, which comes through the proclamation, is universal. 
God desires that all men should be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth 
(1 Tim. 2:4), for his saving grace has appeared to all men (Tit. 2:11). 

The power of God (— Might) is not only at work in the gospel; it has demon- 
strated itself to be powerful from the beginning. Every man can recognize the 
invisible being of God in the works of creation (Rom. 1:20). It is also the power of 
God which raised Christ from the dead (Acts 2:24, 32; Rom. 8:11; 10:9) and 
thereby ushered in the new creation of mankind and of the universe. Believers 
even now experience the transcendent — fullness of God’s power (2 Cor. 4:7), 
his mighty strength (Eph. 1:19; 3:20). Hence the apostle prays that they may be 
continually built up through the Spirit, according to the riches of his glory, with 
power in the inner man (Eph. 3:16). But the ultimate aim of faith, knowledge and 
love is to be filled with all the fullness of God (Eph. 3:19). 

John has the expression which does not occur elsewhere in the NT, ‘‘to have 
God” (1 Jn. 2:23; 2 Jn. 9). Having God, which includes having the Son (1 Jn. 
5:12), is bound up with a firm, true confession of Christ, free from every false 
doctrine (1 Jn. 5:11; — Fellowship, art. echo). 

(e) The saving power of the divine being is expressed in a series of genitives which 
are connected with the noun God. God is the God of — peace (Rom. 15:33; 
16:20; 1 Thess. 5:23; Phil. 4:9; 1 Cor. 14:33; cf. Heb. 13:20), the God of — 
mercy (Lk. 1:78), the Father of mercies and the God of all — comfort (2 Cor. 
1:3; cf. Rom. 12:1), the God of all grace (1 Pet. 5:10, 12), who has blessed us in 



Christ with the fullness and the riches of his grace (Eph. 1:7), the God of — love 
(2 Cor. 13:11). 

(f) The full depth of God’s being, is expressed in the statement: God is love 
(1 Jn. 4:8). His — love embraces the lost world which has turned away from him. 
It is the decisive reason for his saving and redeeming activity. He has proved his 
love by giving up his Son to death in order that all who believe on him may have 
eternal life (Jn. 3:16). Above all his love is for the individual believer; God loved 
us (1 Jn. 4:10); we are the beloved of God (Col. 3:12). 

All real love has its origin in God (1 Jn. 4:7). Whoever does not love has not 
known God (1 Jn. 4:8). The love of God is poured out in our hearts through the 
Holy Spirit (Rom. 5:5). It is the highest spiritual — gift, without which all the 
other charismata are meaningless (1 Cor. 13). 

As God of love, God is rich in — goodness, forbearance and patience (Rom. 
2:4). Tit. 3:4 speaks of the goodness and kindness of God towards men, using Hel. 
language associated with the solemn courtly style for the Hel. ruler and frequently 
discussed by philosophers (cf. C. Spicg, Les Epitres Pastorales, 1947, 275 f.). 

5. God and Christ. The uniqueness of —> Jesus Christ as the — Son of God is 
most fully developed in Jn. and the epistles. He was “‘descended from — David 
according to the — flesh” (Rom. 1:3; cf. Matt. 1:1-17; Lk. 3:23-38; Acts 2:30; 
2 Tim. 2:8; and cf. Mk. 12:35f. par. Matt. 22:21, Lk. 20:41). And he was 
“designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resur- 
rection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 1:4). Perhaps the correct 
meaning here is: ““whom God decreed Son of God with power .. . through resur- 
rection...’ (cf. M. Black, Romans, 1973, 36). The allusion is to the divine decree of 
Ps. 2:6 ff. (cf. L. C. Allen, ‘““The Old Testament Background of prohorizein in the 
New Testament,” N7S 17, 1970-71, 104 ff.; see also on this passage M. E. Bois- 
mard, ‘“‘Constitué Fils de Dieu,’’ RB 40, 1953, 5-17; E. Schweizer, “Rom. 1:3 f. 
und der Gegensatz von Fleisch und Geist vor und bei Paulus,” EvTh 15, 1955, 
563-71; E. Linnemann, “Tradition und Interpretation in Rom. 1:3 ff.,” Ev7Th 31, 
1971, 264-75; and for patristic interpretations M. F. Wiles, The Divine Apostle: 
The Interpretation of St Paul’s Epistles in the Early Church, 1967, 80 f.). According 
to the developed christology of Jn. 1:1, he existed already before his earthly existence 
as the divine — Word (/ogos) with God. Thus he comes from God (Jn. 3:2; 13:3; 
16:27 f.). It was God himself who sent him into the world at the time that he had 
determined to carry out his saving purposes among men (Gal. 4:4 f.). Therefore 
he comes with divine authority; God is with him (Jn. 3:2). He is the image of the 
invisible God (Col. 1:15); in him the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily (Col. 
2:9). Because he has come from God, he alone is capable of bringing an authentic 
message from God (Jn. 1:18). Thus he is the only true and trustworthy revealer. 
He and the Father are one (Jn. 10:30; 14:10; 17:11, 21). Therefore, whoever sees 
him sees God (Jn. 12:45; 14:9). 

(b) There is not only a oneness of being shown by God and Jesus Christ, but 
also a complete harmony in speech and action. The words which Jesus speaks are 
words he has heard from the Father (Jn. 14:10); the works he performs are the 
works of God (Jn. 9:4). They serve to reveal the divine glory and therefore to 
glorify God (Jn. 17:4). This is expressed particularly in Jesus’ words of self- 
disclosure in statements using divine — “I am” formulae (eg6 eimi) which in the 



OT are self-revelations of God himself. He is the — light (Jn. 8:12; cf. 1:4, 8 f.; 
9:5; 12:35), > life (In. 14:6; cf. 31:5f.; 10:10 ff.; 28; 17:2 f.; 20:31), > truth 
(14:6; cf. 1:14, 17; 4:23 f.; 8:32), the living > bread (Jn. 6:48; cf. vv. 51 ff., 63), 
—> water (Jn. 4:13 ff.; cf. 6:35; 7:38), and the only way to God (Jn. 14:6; cf. 10:9). 
(On the background and significance of these terms see C. H. Dodd, The Interpre- 
tation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953; and the commentaries on John by R. Schnacken- 
burg, I, 1968; R. E. Brown, I, 1966, II, 1971; B. Lindars, 1972; and L. Morris, 
1972.) In Rev., too, there occur divine I-am formulae like, “‘I am the first and the 
last,’ which come now from the mouth of God and now from that of the eternal 
Christ (Rev. 1:8, 17; 21:6; 22:13). It is clear that in the NT belief in God is most 
closely bound up with belief in Christ. The fate of men before God is decided by 
their position in relation to Christ. 

(c) But Jesus Christ does not usurp the place of God. His oneness with the Father 
does not mean absolute identity of being. Although the Son of God in his pre- 
existent being was in the — form of God, he resisted the temptation to be equal 
with God (Phil. 2:6). In his earthly existence he was obedient to God, even unto 
death on the cross (Phil. 2:8). He is the mediator, but not the originator, of salva- 
tion (2 Cor. 5:19; Col. 1:20; Heb. 9:15), the + lamb of God who bears the sins 
of the world (Jn. 1:36). After the completion of his work on earth he has indeed 
been raised to the right — hand of God (Eph. 1:20; 1 Pet. 3:22) and invested with 
the honour of the heavenly Kyrios, > Lord (Phil. 2:9 f.). But he is still not made 
equal to God. Although completely co-ordinated with God, he remains subordi- 
nate to him (cf. 1 Cor. 15:28). This is true also of his position as eternal high — 
priest in the heavenly sanctuary according to Heb. (Heb. 9:24; 10:12 f.; cf. Ps. 
110:1). He represents us before God (cf. also Rom. 8:34). If in Rev. 1:13 ff. the 
appearance of the heavenly son of man is described with features from the picture 
of the “Ancient of Days’ (God) of Dan. 7, this is not to say that Christ is equal 
with God. In Rev. a distinction is always made between God and the “‘Lamb”’ 
(cf. Rev. 5:6 ff.; + Like). 

6. Christ as God. A few NT texts raise the question whether the Son of God is 
also called God. 

(a) Rom. 9:5 is disputed. After Paul has expounded the position of Israel in 
salvation history and has emphasized as an especial advantage the fact that Christ, 
according to the flesh, stems from this people, he adds a relative clause, which runs 
lit. “‘who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen.” It would be easy, and linguistic- 
ally perfectly possible to refer the expression to Christ. The verse would then read, 
“Christ who 1s God over all, blessed for ever. Amen.’ Even so, Christ would not be 
equated absolutely with God, but only described as a being of divine nature, for 
the word theos has no article. But this ascription of majesty does not occur any- 
where else in Paul. The much more probable explanation is that the statement is a 
doxology directed to God, stemming from Jewish tradition and adopted by Paul. 
Overwhelmed by God’s dealings with Israel, Paul concludes with an ascription of 
praise to God. The translation would then read, ‘““The one who is God over all be 
blessed for ever. Amen.” or alternatively, “God who is over all be blessed for ever. 
Amen.” ({Ed.] See further M. Black, Romans, 1973, 130; B. M. Metzger, ‘“The 
Punctuation of Rom. 9:5”’, in B. Lindars and S. S. Smalley, eds., Christ and Spirit 
in the New Testament. In Honour of Charles Francis Digby Moule, 1973, 95-112; 



W. L. Lorimer, NTS 13, 1966-67, 385 f.; H.-W. Bartsch, ““R6m. 9:5 und 1 Clem. 
32:4: eine notwendige Konjektur im RO6merbrief,” ThZ 21, 1965, 401-9; H. M. 
Faccio, De Divinitate Christi iuxta S. Paulum: Rom. 9:5, 1945; for patristic inter- 
pretations M. F. Wiles, The Divine Apostle: The Interpretation of St Paul’s Epistles 
in the Early Church, 1967, 83 ff.; and J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, II, 
1965, 245-8. Murray claims that the passage cannot be treated as a doxology to 
God the Father, since it does not follow the form of doxologies elsewhere in the 
LXX and the NT. The application of theos to Christ suits the context and could 
be regarded as the culmination of a sequence of privileges given to Israel which 
Paul is enumerating. Moreover, comparable assertions of divinity may be found 
in 2 Thess. 1:12; Tit. 2:13; Phil. 2:6; Col. 2:9; and 2 Cor. 3:17. The assertion of 
Christ’s Lordship is in accord with Paul’s teaching elsewhere [cf. Rom. 1:4; 14:9; 
Eph. 1:20, 23; Phil. 2:9-11; Col. 1:18 f.; cf. also Matt. 28:18; Jn. 3:35; Acts 2:36; 
Heb. 1:2 ff.; 8:1; 1 Pet. 3:22]. Hence, Murray argues that ““God blessed for ever- 
more”’ stands in apposition to Christ.) 

(b) Several passages in Jn. contain ascriptions of divinity. Jn. 1:1 (RSV) declares: 
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God [kai theos én ho logos].’’ ({Ed.] The fact that there is no definite article before 
theos here has been taken to imply that the Word may be understood as being 
some kind of divine being but not in the fullest sense of the term. Such views have 
been put forward from Origen [Commentary on Jn. 2, 2], whose views were taken 
up by the Arians in the fourth century, to the Jehovah’s Witnesses today. The 
passage is rendered by the NEB: ‘‘what God was, the Word was.” J. A. T. Robin- 
son appealed to it in support of his plea for a restatement of orthodox christology 
[ Honest to God, 1963, 71; cf. The Human Face of God, 1973, 182; and the discussion 
by E. D. Freed, “Honest to John,” ExpT 75, 1963-64, 61 ff.]. R. E. Brown con- 
siders the NEB rendering more accurate than saying simply that the Word was 
“divine” [The Gospel according to John, I, 1966, 5]. In any case, the adj. for “divine” 
is theios, whereas it is the noun theos that is used here. R. E. Brown points out that 
there are instances of nouns with the definite article after the vb. “to be”’ in Jn. (e.g. 
11:25; 14:6), implying that we might expect the article here if Jn. had meant to 
say that “the word was God.’ On the other hand, the passage conforms to the 
pattern that in the NT definite nouns which precede the vb. regularly lack the 
article [cf. E. C. Colwell, JBL 52, 1933, 12-21; Funk, 143, §273; Moule, 116]. 
Hence, the RSV translation would be the correct one. For further discussion see 
B. M. Metzger, ExpT 63, 1951-52, 125f.; J. G. Griffiths, ExpT 62, 1950-51, 
314 ff.; N. Turner, /nsights, 17; E. M. Sidebottom, The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, 
1961, 48 f.; L. Morris, op. cit., 77. On the patristic interpretation of Jn. generally 
see M. F. Wiles, The Spiritual Gospel: The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel in the 
Early Church, 1960; and F.-M. Braun, Jean le Théologien, I-III, 1959-66.) 

On monogenés see above 3 (c). In Jn. 1:18 a number of very good MSS read 
monogenés theos (“the only God’? RSVmg) instead of ho monogenés hyios (“the only 
Son” RSV). The unusualness of such a reading is regarded by some as grounds for 
accepting its authenticity (cf. L. Morris, op. cit., 113 f.). If so, it would be a further 
affirmation of the deity of the Word. 

Jn. 20:28 contains the unique affirmation of Thomas addressing the Risen Christ 
as God: ‘‘My Lord and my God [ho kyrios mou kai ho theos mou].’”’ The statement 



marks the climax of the Gospel. God has become visible for Thomas in the form of 
Jesus. The climax of Johannine teaching occurs in the confessional formula of 1 Jn. 
5:20 which asserts the full identity of essence of Christ and God: ““And we know 
that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, to know him who 
is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God 
and eternal life’ (RSV). This gives a lit. reproduction of the Gk. words. An 
alternative translation is: ‘““This [Christ] is the true one, God and eternal life.” 

(c) This is the nearest that the NT comes to asserting the full identity of Christ 
with God. Tit. 2:13 speaks of ‘‘awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the 
glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ” (RSV, cf. RSV mg. “‘of the great 
God and our Saviour’’). Hesitation has been expressed about appealing to this 
text as such an instance. “The application of the formula ‘‘great God”’ to Jesus 
which was a title for God firmly rooted in late Judaism would be completely 
unique in the New Testament” (J. Jeremias, N7.D 9, 58). Paul’s teaching in Phil. 
2:6 speaks against complete equation, when it draws a distinction in the words, 
‘though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be 
grasped.” E. Stauffer is doubtless correct when he writes: ‘““The Christology of the 
NT is carried to its logical conclusion with the thorough-going designation of Christ 
as theos” (TDNT III 106). J. Schneider 

(d) Jesus’ cry of desolation is recorded in Matt. 27:46 and Mk. 15:34. Both give 
a version of Jesus’ words in the original language and add their own translation: 
“eli éli lema sabachtani? that is ‘My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken 
me?’ ”’ (Matt.); ‘‘eloi eldi lama sabachthani which means, ‘My God, my God, why 
hast thou forsaken me?’ ”’ (Mk.). The cry corresponds to the opening words of 
Ps. 22 which in the MT reads ’é/i ’élf lamdah “‘zabtani. Mk. appears to have written 
the Aram. ’e/di. The bystanders evidently took it to be a call to — Elijah who was 
taken up to heaven (2 Ki. 2:9-12) and was believed to rescue the righteous in 
distress (SB IV, 2, 76 ff.). 

From the earliest times the cry has been felt to raise problems for christology. 
These are reflected in the MSS variants and the version of Gos. Pet 5:19: “My 
power, O power, thou hast forsaken me!” (cf. K. Stendahl, The School of St. 
Matthew, 19677, 83-7; Henn.-Schn., I, 184). It is felt that the words imply an 
abandonment by God which is incompatible with belief in his divinity, and a lack 
of trust on Jesus’ part. Nevertheless, Matt. and Mk. did not shirk to record it. The 
cry expresses a sense of utter desolation, such as Jesus had not even experienced on 
occasions of temptation, rejection and in Gethsamene. His faithfulness to God’s 
will had led him to the point where that will had to be done without the conscious 
awareness of God’s presence. This was the experience of the Psalmist. And in 
recording the cry the evangelists may well have seen in it further fulfilment of Ps. 
22 (cf. Matt. 27:35; Mk. 15:24; Lk. 23:34; Jn. 19:25 with Ps. 22:18; and Matt. 
27:39, 43; Mk. 15:29; Lk. 23:35 with Ps. 22:7 f.; cf. also Heb. 2:12 with Ps. 22:22; 
see further B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 1961, 89-93; H. Gese, “‘Psalm 
22 und das Neue Testament’’, Z7K 65, 1968, 1-22). The poignancy of the parallels and 
the solemnity of the narrative may have been too great for the evangelists to pause 
to speak of — fulfilment. Jesus’ cry is all the more poignant in view of the taunt (also 
made to the Psalmist): he trusts in God, let God deliver him. The suggestion that the 


cry was an interpretation put into the mouth of Jesus’ perhaps in the light of the 
Ps. (cf. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1963, 313) raises more 
problems than it solves, for it is incredible that the church would have invented an 
utterance which appears to go back on all that Jesus had taught. The cry reveals 
the anguish felt by Jesus in being utterly rejected by friend and foe alike and in 
dying the most excruciating death. At the same time we may say with C. E. B. 
Cranfield that the cry is to be understood in the light of Mk. 14:36 (and par. Matt. 
26:39; Lk. 22:42; Jn. 12:27) and the Pauline interpretation of Jesus’ death in 2 
Cor. 5:21 and Gal. 3:13. ‘““The burden of the world’s sin, his complete self-identi- 
fication with sinners, involved not merely a felt, but a real, abandonment by his 
Father” (The Gospel According to Saint Mark, 1963, 458). 

The parallels with Ps. 22 may, however, be pursued even further. G. Dalman 
has suggested that for the Jews the opening words were recognized as an effective 
prayer for help in the light of the latter part of the Ps. (Jesus-Jeshua, 1929, 206). 
The Psalmist survives his immediate desolation to praise God in the congregation 
(v. 22; cf. Heb. 2:12). All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord 
(v. 27). Dominion belongs to the Lord and he rules over the nations. (v. 28). 
Posterity shall serve him and proclaim his deliverance to a people yet unborn 
(vv. 30 f.). If the earlier part of the Ps. may be seen as being fulfilled in Jesus’ death, 
the latter may be said to find fulfilment in the revelation of the risen Christ in the 
great commission to evangelize (Matt. 28 :16—20). C. Brown 

7. God and the Church. The community of believers is called the ekklésia tou 
theou (Acts 20:28; 2 Cor. 1:2; 10:32; 11:16, 22; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; Gal. 1:13; 
1 Thess. 2:14; 2 Thess. 1:4; 1 Tim. 3:5, 15; + Church). It consists of those chosen 
by God and called to be saints (Rom. 1:7; cf. the opening address of most of Paul’s 
epistles) and who have received all the gifts of salvation and grace. They have peace 
with God (Rom. 5:1), for they have been reconciled through Christ (2 Cor. 5:18). 
As the beginning of God’s new creation (2 Cor. 5:17) they are his workmanship, 
created in Christ Jesus for good works (Eph. 2:10). God works in them both to 
will and to accomplish (Phil. 2:13), and gives them assurance of the completion of 
their salvation (Rom. 5:2, Phil. 3:21). At the return of Christ he will give life to 
their mortal bodies (Rom. 8:11) and a share in his glory and in eternal life. 

(b) The church is the > temple of God (1 Cor. 3:16; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21); 
God’s holy building into which all believers are placed as living stones (1 Pet. 2:4); 
the dwelling of God in the Spirit in which Christians are members of God’s 
household (Eph. 2:19, 21). It is the new people of God (1 Pet. 2:9) which forms the 
— body of Christ in which believers have a share in the plérdéma, the fullness of the 
being of God and Christ (Col. 2:10; Eph. 1:23; —> Fullness, art. plérod). The 
community stands under God’s protection. It is hidden in him, for God is on its 
side (Rom. 8:31). Therefore no power, whatever it may be called, is capable of 
separating it from God’s love. 

Paul emphasized strongly that the ekklésia of God consists of Jews and Gentiles. 
This is because Christ has reconciled Jews and Gentiles to God in one body through 
the — cross. Whoever receives the word of reconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19) and believes 
in Christ has free access to the Father (Eph. 2:18). In God’s people of the new 
— covenant racial and national differences are removed. 



8. The Trinity. The NT does not contain the developed doctrine of the Trinity. 
“The Bible lacks the express declaration that the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Spirit are of equal essence and therefore in an equal sense God himself. And the 
other express declaration is also lacking, that God is God thus and only thus, 
i.e. as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ‘These two express declarations, 
which go beyond the witness of the Bible, are the twofold content of the Church 
doctrine of the Trinity” (Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 437). It also lacks such terms as 
trinity (Lat. trinitas which was coined by Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 3; 11; 12 
etc.) and homoousios which featured in the Creed of Nicea (325) to denote that 
Christ was of the same substance as the Father (cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian 
Doctrines, 1968+, 113, 233-7). But the NT does contain the fixed, three-part formula 
of 2 Cor. 13:13 (EVV 14) in which God, the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit are 
mentioned together (cf. 1 Cor. 12:4 ff.). The Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit 
occurs only in the baptismal formula in Matt. 28:19. The later addition, 1 Jn. 5:8 
(in Lat. texts from the 6th cent.), contains the triad, the Father, the Word and the 
Holy Spirit (cf. E. Stauffer, 7DNT III 108 f.). An extension of the triadic form in 
which, however, the important element is “the one God,” “‘the one Lord” and “‘the 
one Spirit,’ appears in Eph. 4:4 ff. Gal. 4:4 ff. does not, strictly speaking, present 
a formula. It sets out the action of God in salvation history, placing God, Christ 
and the Holy Spirit in their right relationship: God first sends the Son and then 
the Spirit of his Son to continue the work of Jesus on earth. 

On the other hand, God and Christ especially are closely connected in two-part 
formulae: ‘‘one God, the Father. . . and one Lord, Jesus Christ’’ (1 Cor. 8:6). “one 
God... and one mediator between God and men”’ (1 Tim. 2:5). In this connection 
Matt. 23:8-10 must also be mentioned, where Jesus draws the disciples’ attention 
to the fact that they have one master (himself) and one God in heaven. In all these 
statements the two facts, that God and Christ belong together and_that they are 
distinct, are equally stressed, with the precedence in every case due to God, the 
Father, who stands above Christ. (On the formulae see E. Stauffer, New Testament 
Theology, 1955, 235-57, J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972°, 6-29; V. F. 
Neufeld, The Earliest Christian Confessions, 1963.) 

A close relationship exists also between Christ and the Holy — Spirit. Thus 
Paul can say outright that the Lord is the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:17). In John’s Gospel the 
Holy Spirit (the Paraclete,-» Advocate) appears with “certain independence”’ 
(E. Stauffer, TDNT III 107). But in his work he is bound to the exalted Christ 
(Jn. 16:14; “He will take what is mine’’). Christ and the Holy Spirit are in an inter- 
changeable relationship. But even here there is no strict, dogmatic assertion. 
Although the Spirit is distinguished from Christ and subordinated to him, it can 
be said in |] Jn. 2:1 that Christ is the Paraclete with the Father. All this underlines 
the point that primitive Christianity did not have an explicit doctrine of the Trinity 
such as was subsequently elaborated in the creeds of the early church. (For dis- 
cussions of the Trinity in the NT see L. Hodgson, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 1943, 
38-84; A. E. J. Rawlinson, ed., Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, 1933; 
Karl Barth, CD, I, 1, 339-560; G. A. F. Knight, A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine 
of the Trinity, 1953; A. W. Wainwright, The Trinity in the New Testament, 

J. Schneider 



9. Pagan Deities. It is unlikely that the average Greek and Roman took the old 
gods and goddesses seriously, but tradition and superstition led people to altars, 
shrines and images. The multiplicity of altars at Athens moved Paul to describe the 
Athenians as deisidaimonesterous (Acts 17:22), a comparative form compounded 
from deido (fear) and daimon (a deity or demon). The adj. deisidaimon often means 
superstitious. But Paul evidently intended it in a more positive sense, i.e. “quite 
religious’ (cf. the noun deisidaimonia which can mean superstition, fear or rever- 
ence for the divinity in a good sense, and religion [cf. Arndt. 172]). 

The main Gk. pantheon, with the Roman equivalents given in brackets, was: 
Zeus (Jupiter), Hera (Juno), Apollo (Apollo or Phoebus), Ares (Mars), Poseidon 
(Neptune), Aphrodite (Venus), Hermes (Mercury), Athene (Minerva), Artemis 
(Diana), Hades or Pluto (Pluto or Orcus). 

In 1 Cor. 10:20 Paul equated pagan deities with demons, but in addressing the 
intelligent Athenians, he quoted with approval Epimenides, Aratus, Phaenomena 
5, and Cleanthes, Hymn to Zeus 4 (cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1951, 
338 f.; see also above, section 4 (b)). “Yet he is not far from each one of us, for 
‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your poets have 
said, ‘For we are indeed his offspring’”’ (Acts 17:27 f.). The poets are actually 
praising Zeus, but Paul makes it clear that he treats the quotations as referring to 
their highest conception of the supreme God, or rather their non-conception, the 
Unknown God, of whom he proceeded to speak. 

The following Greek deities are named in the NT. (1) Zeus and Hermes. At 
Lystra, after an outstanding miracle of healing, Barnabas and Paul were treated 
as heavenly visitants, the dignified Barnabas as Zeus and Paul, the talker, as 
Hermes (Acts 14:8-18). (i1) Ares. At Athens Paul was taken to the Areopagus, or 
Hill of Ares, where speakers were allowed to hold forth, as at Hyde Park Corner 
in London, and where the Athenian Council met (Acts 17:19). (ii) Artemis. Her 
temple at Ephesus was one of the wonders of the world, and Paul’s successful 
preaching roused the makers of shrine souvenirs (Acts 19:21-41). The Ephesian 
Artemis was only loosely identified with Artemis the huntress. Statues and descrip- 
tions show that she was the great Mother Goddess. (iv) Hades. In classical Gk. the 
god’s name came to stand for his kingdom of the underworld, although it was 
quite common to use the expression en Hadou (gen. instead of dat.), meaning “‘in the 
house of Hades.” In the NT the word is used of the place or state only (e.g. [en t6 
Hadeé] Lk. 16:23; — Hell, art. hades). 

Two Canaanite gods appear in quotations from the OT: Baal (Rom. 11:4; 1 Ki. 
19:18) and Moloch (Acts 7:43; Amos 5:26). J. Stafford Wright 

10. There are several compound words in the NT which indicate an actual or 
potential link with God. (i) theosebeia (1 Tim. 2:10) means reverence for God, piety, 
religion. theosebés (Jn. 9:31) means God-fearing, devout, a worshipper of God. 
The vb. theosebed, to worship God, does not occur in the NT but is found in Ep. 
Diog. 3:1 in early Christian literature. In all these forms the root is from the vb. 
sebd, worship or reverence, plus theos, God (— Godliness, art. sebomai). Proselytes 
were sometimes referred to as sebomenoi [ton theon] (e.g. Acts 13:43; 18:7). These 
God-fearers were Gentiles who accepted the Jewish way of life in general, but did 



not bind themselves to keep all the ritual details of the > law, in particular — 
circumcision (—> Conversion, art. prosélytos). (ii) theostygés (Rom. 1:30) is a 
compound from stygeo, to hate, plus theos. In cl. Gk. it means God-hated or God 
forsaken. But in its sole NT occurrence an active meaning appears necessary, i.e. 
God-hating, haters of God (RSV). (iii) Theophilos, Theophilus, is derived from 
philed, to love. Its meaning is either “‘dear to God’’, as generally in cl. Gk., or 
“lover of God.” In the NT it occurs only in Lk. 1:3 and Acts 1:1 as the name of 
the person for whom Luke writes. It is almost certainly a proper name, perhaps a 
pseudonym for some well-known person, but it could stand for any Christian 
reader (for discussion and literature see F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1951, 
65 f.; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 136f.). (iv) theios occurs 3 
times in the NT. With the art., to theion means the Deity (Acts 17:29). As an adj., 
it means divine and is used with power and nature in 2 Pet. 1:3 f. (v) theiotés (Rom. 
1:20) means deity: God’s “invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity 
has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made” (see above, 4 (b)). 
theotés, deity, divinity (Col. 2:9), is a stronger word and is used as an abstract 
noun for theos in connection with the incarnation: “‘For in him the whole fulness 
of deity dwells bodily.” By contrast the weaker words to theion (Acts 17:29) and 
theiotés (Rom. 1:20) speak of the Gentile awareness of the deity. (See further 
H. S. Nash, theiotés-theotés, JBL 18, 1899, 1-34; Moulton-Milligan, 286 ff.; and 
Arndt, 354, 357 ff. for the terms discussed above.) J. Stafford Wright 

|  Eupavovyd ’Eupavovy dA (Emmanouel), Emmanuel. 

OT The name Emmanuel which occurs in Isa. 7:14 and 8:8 means lit. ““God [is] 

with us” (Heb. ‘immanii él). In the context of the times of Isaiah and King 
Ahaz the name is given to a child as yet not conceived with the promise that the 
danger now threatening Israel from Syria and Samaria will pass “‘before the child 
knows how to refuse evil and choose the good.” Thus, the child and its name is a 
sign of God’s gracious, saving presence among his people. The name can have 
either a minimum or a maximum significance. It could be a general statement that 
the birth and naming of the special child will indicate that the good hand of God is 
upon us. Or it could be a divine name meaning that God’s presence with us is to 
be found in the child. In justification of the latter interpretation is the name of the 
one whom we may fairly regard as the same child in Isa. 9:6. One of his names 
here is ’él gibb6ér which, in the light of its application to Yahweh himself in 10:21, 
means Mighty God. (See further E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, I, 1965, 283-94, 
306 f., 335 ff.; O. Kaiser, Zsaiah 1-12, 1972, 96-106; J. Lindblom, A Study on the 
Immanuel Section of Isaiah, 1958 reprint; J. A. Motyer, “Context and Content in 
the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14,” TB 21, 1970, 118-25.) 

NI Matt. 1:23 sees the angel’s promise to Joseph of the son conceived in Mary by © 

the Holy Spirit, who is to be called ‘“‘Jesus, for he will save his people from ~ 
their sins,”’ as a fulfilment of Isa. 7:14. The quotation corresponds largely with the » 
LXX, though the LXX does not give a translation of the name to indicate its | 
significance. It does not necessarily mean that a virgin birth was prophesied, for © 


parthenos could be used of others than virgins (e.g. Gen. 34:3), and similarly the 
Heb. ‘almaéh could mean a young woman married or single (Gen. 24:43; Exod. 
2:8; Pss. 68:25; Prov. 30:19; Cant. 1:3; 6:8). On the question of the virgin 
birth see J. Orr, The Virgin Birth of Christ, 1907; J. G. Machen, The Virgin Birth 
of Christ, [1930] 1958; T. Boslooper, The Virgin Birth, 1962; R. E. Brown, The 
Virginal Conception & Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, 1973. This question rests 
on the interpretation of verses other than Matt. 1:23. The name Emmanuel is 
not applied to Jesus elsewhere in the NT. The point of the present passage is to see 
in the birth of Jesus a saving act of God, comparable with the birth of the first 
Emmanuel. Both births signify God’s presence with his people through a child. But 
whereas the earlier event in Isaiah’s day was regarded at the time as having decisive 
significance, in the light of the coming of Jesus it proves to be merely the anticipa- 
tion of the really decisive saving act and presence of God. For Matt.’s concept of 
fulfilment — Fullness, art. plérod, NT 1 (c). See also on this passage W. C. van 
Unnik, ‘““Dominus Vobiscum’’, in A. J. B. Higgins, ed, New Testament Essays: 
Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1959, 270-305. 

One may link Matt.’s quotation, written in the light of the disciples’ experience 
of Jesus Christ, with Lk. 1:35, where the unique act of the Holy Spirit means that 
the child will be “‘the Son of God.’’ Thus “‘“God with us” is to be taken in a similar 
way. The child will be God come to earth. The conception by the Holy Spirit 
draws attention to the role of God in the birth and life of Jesus. 

J. Stafford Wright, C. Brown 

On God in the OT and in the ancient world: 

(a). W. F. Albright, Archaeology and the Religion of Israel, 1956; From Stone Age to Christianity, 
1957; and Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan, 1968; A. Alt, “The God of the Fathers”, in Essays 
on Old Testament History and Religion, 1966, 1-77; L. R. Bailey, “Israelite ’e] Sadday and 
Amorite bél sadé”’, JBL 87, 1968, 434-38; T. Boman, Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek, 
1960; but see also the discussion of Boman’s metholodogy in J. Barr, The Semantics of Biblical 
Language, 1961; M. Buber, The Prophetic Faith, 1960; J. S. Chesnut, The Old Testament Under- 
standing of God, 1968; R. E. Clements, God and Temple, 1965; A. Deissler, ““God”’, EBT I 
298-309; R. C. Dentan, The Knowledge of God in Ancient Israel 1968; W. Eichrodt, Theology of 
the Old Testament, I-II, 1961-67; O. Eissfeldt, “‘ ‘My God’ in the Old Testament”, EQ 19, 1947, 
7 ff.; M. Eliade, From Primitives to Zen, 1967; J. Ferguson, The Religion of the Roman Empire, 1974? ; 
J. Goldingay, “‘ ‘That You May Know that Yahweh is God’: A Study in the Relationship between 
Theology and Historical Truth in the Old Testament’, TB 23, 1972, 58-93; W. L. Holladay, 
‘** “Yahweh, Maker of Heaven and Earth’: A Study in Tradition Criticism’’, JBL 91, 1972, 321-37; 
J. P. Hyatt, ‘“Was Yahweh Originally a Creator Deity?’, JBL 86, 1967, 369 ff.; B. van Iersel, The 
Bible on the Living God, 1965; E. Jacob, Theology of the Old Testament, 1964°; E. O. James, The 
Ancient Gods, 1960; N. B. Johnson, Prayer in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha: A Study in the 
Jewish Conception of God, 1948; A. Jukes, The Names of God in Holy Scripture, (1888) 1967; G. A. 
F. Knight, A Christian Theology of the Old Testament, 1959; C. J. Labuschagne, The Incomparability 
of Yahweh in the Old Testament, Pretoria Oriental Series 5, 1966; T. Ling, A History of Religion 
East and West, 1968; G. van der Leeuw, Religion in Essence and Manifestation: A Study in Pheno- 
menology, 19642; H. Miskotte, When the Gods are Silent, 1967; J. A. Motyer, The Revelation of the 
Divine Name, 1959; and ‘‘Context and Contents in the Interpretation of Isaiah 7:14’, TB 21, 1970, 
118-25; A. Marmorstein, The Old Rabbinic Doctrine of God, (1927) 1937; M. Noth, ““God, King and 
Nation’’, in The Laws the Pentateuch and Other Studies, 1966, 145-78; J. Barton Payne, The Theology 
of the Older Testament, 1962, 120-76; J. Plastras, The God of Exodus, 1966; G. von Rad, Old 
Testament Theology, I, 1962, 203-19; H. Ringgren and A. V. Strom, Religions of Mankind: Yesterday 
and Today, 1967; H. H. Rowley, ‘“‘The Nature of God’’, in The Faith of Israel: Aspects of Old 
Testament Thought, 1956, 48-75; and The Religion of Israel, 1956; H. J. Schoeps, The Jewish- 
Christian Argument: A History of Theologies in Conflict, 1963; N. Smart, The Religious Experience 



of Mankind, 1969; R. A. Stewart, Rabbinic Theology, 1961, 18-46; R. de Vaux, “The Revelation of 
the Divine Name YHWH”,, in J. 1. Durham and J. R. Porter, eds., Proclamation and Presence: Old 
Testament Essays in Honour of Gwynne Henton Davies, 1970, 48-75; Th. C. Vriezen, An Outline 
Theology of the Old Testament, 1958, 128-98; H. J. Wicks, The Doctrine of God in the Jewish Apocry- 
pha and Apocalyptic Literature, 1915; H. M. Wolf, ‘‘A Solution to the Immanuel Prophecy in Isaiah 
7:14-8:22”, JBL 91, 1972, 449-56; R. C. Zaehner, The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, 1961. 
(b). K. L. Bellon, ““Der Sinn der Frage nach dem Ursprung der Gottesidee’”’, Zeitschrift fiir 
Missionswissenschaft 38, 1954, 318 ff.; H. A. Brongers, ““Die Wendung b*sém jhwh im Alten 
Testament”, ZAW 77, 1965, 1ff.; M. Buber, ‘‘Die Gotter der V6lker und Gott”, Festschrift for O. 
Michel, 1963, 44-57; E. L. Dietrich, ‘‘Die rabbinische Kritik an Gott’’, ZRGG 7, 1955, 193 ff.; O. 
Eissfeldt, Vom Werden der biblischen Gottesanschauung, 19267; and “‘Jahwe, der Gott der Vater’’, 
TLZ 88, 1963, 481-90; A. Gelin, ‘“Le monothéisme d’Israel”, Lumiére et Vie 29, 1956, 9-26; V. 
Hamp, ‘‘Monotheismus im Alten Testament’, Sacra Pagina 1, 1959, 44-56; J. Hempel, Gott und 
Mensch im Alten Testament, BWANT III, 2, 19362; W. Jaeger, Die Theologie der friihen griechischen 
Denker, 1953; J. Jeremias, Theophanie. Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlicher Gattung, Wissen- 
schaftliche Monographien 10, 1965; R. Knieriem, ‘“‘Das erste Gebot’’, ZAW 77, 1965, 20 ff.; H.-J. 
Kraus, “‘Der lebendige Gott’, Biblisch-theologische Autsatze, 1972, 1-36; W. F. Otto, Die 
altgriechische Gottesidee, 1926; and Die Gétter Griechenlands, 19342; H. D. Preuss, Jahweglaube 
und Zukunftserwartung, BWANT 87, 1968; G. von Rad, Gottes Wirken in Israel: Vortrage zum 
Alten Testament, 1974; B. Renaud, Je suis un Dieu jaloux, 1963; R. Rendtorff, ““El, Baal und Jahwe. 
Erwagungen zum Verhialtnis von kanaanitischer und israelitischer Religion’. ZAW 78 Neue 
Folge 37, 227 ff.; H. Schrade, Das verborgene Gottesbild und Gottesvorstellung in Israel und 
im Alten Orient, 1949; H. Seebass, Der Erzvater Israel und die Einfiihrung der Jahweverehrung 
in Kanaan, 1966; N. S6derblom, Das Werden des Gottesglaubens, 19267; C. Steuernagel, ‘“Jahwe 
und die Vatergotter” in Festschrift for G. Beer, 1935; U. von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Der Glaube 
der Hellenen, 1, 19557; H. Wildberger, ‘“‘Das Abbild Gottes, Gen. 1, 26-30”, ThZ 21, 1965, 481 ff. 

On God in the NT: 

(a). A. W. Argyle, God in the New Testament, 1965; R. M. Grant, The Early Christian Doctrine 
of God, 1966; R. G. Crawford, “‘Is the Doctrine of the Trinity Scriptural ?”’, SJT 20, 1967, 282-94; 
D. A. Hagner, “‘The Vision of God in Philo and John: A Comparative Study’, Journal of the 
Evangelical Theological Society, 142, 1971, 81-93; H. Kleinknecht, G. Quell, E. Stauffer and K. G. 
Kuhn, theos, TDNT III 65-123; G. A. F. Knight, A Biblical Approach to the Doctrine of the 
Trinity (SJT Occasional Papers No. 1), 1953; J. Jeremias, The Prayers of Jesus, 1967; T. W. Man- 
son, The Teaching of Jesus, 1935?, 89-170; H. W. Montefiore, ““God as Father in the Synoptic 
Gospels”, NTS 3, 1956-7, 1-11; K. Rahner, ‘“Theos in the New Testament’’, Theological Investiga- 
tions, I, 1965", 79-148; J. A. Sanders, “Dissenting Deities and Philippians 2:1-11;” JBL 88, 1969, 
279-90; R. Schnackenburg, ‘“‘God”’, EBT I 309-16; E. Schweizer, ‘‘What is Meant by ‘God’ ?’, 
Interpretation 21, 1967, 421-34; H. F. D. Sparks, ““The Doctrine of Divine Fatherhood in the 
Gospels’, in D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels: Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot, 
1955, 241-62; W. C. van Unnik, ‘“‘Dominus Vobiscum’’, in A. J. B. Higgins, ed., New Testament 
Essays: Studies in Memory of T. W. Manson, 1959, 270-305; A. W. Wainwright, ““The Confession 
‘Jesus is God’ in the New Testament’’, S/T 10, 1957, 274-99; and The Trinity in the New Testament, 

(b). H. Braun, Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament und seiner Umwelt, 1967"; G. Delling, 
‘‘Partizipiale Gottespradikationen in den Briefen des Neuen Testaments’’, St7h 17, 1963, 1-59; 
J. Feiner and M. Lohrer, eds., Mysterium Salutis, I], 1967; W. G. Kimmel, “Die Gottesver- 
kiindigung Jesu und der Gottesgedanke des Spatjudentums’’, Judaica 1, 1945, 40-68, reprinted in 
Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 1965, 107-25; J. Leipoldt, Das Gotteserlebnis Jesu im Lichte der 
vergleichenden Religionsgeschichte, 1927; W. Marchel, Abba, Vater!, 1963; C. Miller, Gottes 
Gerechtigkeit und Gottes Volk. Eine Untersuchung zu Rom. 9-11, FRLANT 86, 1964; T. Miller, 
Gottesbild und Gottesbeziehung im Neuen Testament, 1966; E. Pax, ““Die Epiphanie Gottes im 
Neuen Testament’, BuK 19, 1964, 106 ff.; E. Rohde, ‘‘Gottesglaube und Kyriosglaube bei Paulus’’, 
ZNW 22, 1923, 43 ff. 

God in Systematic Theology: 
(a). J. Baillie, Our Knowledge of God, 1939; K. Barth, CD, I, 1-2, The Doctrine of the Word of 
God; CD Il, 1-3, The Doctrine of God; H. Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, 1951; L. Berkhof, 



Systematic Theology, 1938; 19-178; E. Brunner, Dogmatics, I, The Christian Doctrine of God, 1949; 
J. Daniélou, God and Us, 1967; E. Farley, The Transcendence of God, 1962; E. J. Fortman, The 
Triune God: A Historical Study of the Doctrine of the Trinity, 1972; R. T. France, The Living God, 
1970; R. S. Franks, The Doctrine of the Trinity, 1953; H. Gollwitzer, The Existence of God as 
Confessed by Faith, 1965; R. P. C. Hanson, The Attractiveness of God: Essays in Christian Doctrine, 
1973; C. F. H. Henry, ““God’’, ZPEB II 742-58; E. Hill, ““Our Knowledge of the Trinity”, SJT 27, 
1974, 1-11; C. Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1, reprint 1960, 191-482; L. Hodgson, The Doctrine 
of the Trinity, 1943; J. R. Illingworth, Personality: Human and Divine, 1894; The Doctrine of the 
Trinity Apologetically Considered, 1907; and Divine Transcendence, 1911; E. Jiingel, The Doctrine of 
the Trinity, 1976; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972°; Early Christian Doctrines, 1968; 
and The Athanasian Creed, 1964; J. K. Mozley, The Impassibility of God: A Survey of Christian 
Thought, 1926; and The Doctrine of God, 1928; J. I. Packer, Knowing God, 1973; W. Pannenberg, 
Basic Questions in Theology, I-\IJ, 1970-73; L. G. Patterson, God and History in Early Christian 
Thought, 1968; G. L. Prestige, God in Patristic Thought, 1936; K. Rahner, The Trinity, 1970; 
‘““Remarks on the Dogmatic Treatise ‘De Trinitate’ ”’, Theological Investigations, 1V, 1966, 77-102; 
A. E. J. Rawlinson, ed., Essays on the Trinity and the Incarnation, 1928; C. C. Richardson, The 
Doctrine of the Trinity, 1958; N. H. G. Robinson, “‘God’’, in A. Richardson, ed., A Dictionary of 
Christian Theology, 1969, 137-46; and “‘Trinitarianism and Post-Barthian Theology’, JTS N. S. 
20, 1969, 186-201; E. Schillebeeckx, God and Man, 1969; D. Sdlle, Christ the Representative: An 
Essay in Theology after the ‘‘ Death of God’’, 1967; H. E. W. Turner, ‘“‘Trinity”, in A. Richardson, 
op. cit., 345-51; B. B. Warfield, ‘“‘The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity’ and ‘‘The God of our 
Fathers and the Lord Jesus Christ”, in Biblical and Theological Studies, 1952, 29-59 and 60-78; 
A. C. Welch, The Trinity in Contemporary Theology, 1952; H. Zahrnt, The Question of God, 1966; 
and What Kind of God? A Question of Faith, 1971. 

(b). G. Aulén, Das christliche Gottesbild in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart, 1930; K. H. Bernhardt, 
‘“‘Fremde Gotter’, BHHW I 589 ff.; K. Goldammer et al., ‘“Gott’’, RGG? II 1701 ff.; H. Gollwitzer, 
“Das Wort ‘‘Gott”’ in christlicher Theologie’’, TLZ 92, 1967, 161 ff.; J. Haeckel er al., ‘“‘Gott’’, 
LTK IV 1070 ff.; H.-J. Iwand, Glauben und Wissen. Nachgelassene Werke, 1961, 27 ff.; E. Jacob 
and W. Schmauch, ‘‘Gott’, BHHW I 585 ff.; W. Knevels, Die Wirklichkeit Gottes, 1964; W. 
Kiinneth, Von Gott Reden ?, 1965; B. Lonergan, De Deo Trino, 1961; and Divinarum Personarum 
Conceptionem Analogicam, 1957; F. Mildenberger, ‘‘Uberlegungen zum Gottesbegriff”, ZTK 62, 
1965, 458 ff.; O. Ploger, W. Kasch and W. Wiesner, “‘“Gott, Gottesglaube”’, EKL I 1639 ff.; H. H. 
Schrey, ‘“Zwischen Orthodoxie und Haresie. Die doppelte Verantwortung unseres Redens von 
Gott’, Evangelische Kommentare, 1968, 250 ff. 

On God in philosophy and philosophical theology: 

J. Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece, 1908; T. J. J. Altizer and W. Hamilton, Radical 
Theology and the Death of God, 1968; J. Barnes, The Ontological Argument, 1972; P. A. Bertocci, 
The Person God Is, 1970; J. Bowker, The Sense of God, 1973; C. Brown, Philosophy and the 
Christian Faith, 19717; S. C. Brown, Do Religious Claims Make Sense ? 1969; M. Buber, Eclipse 
of God, 1952; R. Bultmann, ‘““What Does it Mean to Speak of God?” and “‘The Problem of 
‘Natural Theology’ ” in Faith and Understanding: Collected Essays, 1969, 53-65 and 313-331; 
D. R. Burrell, The Cosmological Arguments, 1967; J. Collins, God in Modern Philosophy, 1960; 
M. Durrant, The Logical Status of God”, 1973; and Theology and Intelligibility, 1973; H. H. Farmer, 
The World and God, 1935; A. M. Farrer, Finite and Infinite, 1943; F. Ferré, “Is Language about 
God Fraudulent ?’’, SJT 12, 1959, 337-60; and Language, Logic and God, 1962; and Basic Modern 
Philosophy of Religion, 1965; A. G. N. Flew, God and Philosophy, 1966; A. G. N. Flew and A. 
MacIntyre, eds., New Essays in Philosophical Theology, 1955; E. Boyce Gibson, Theism and 
Empiricism, 1970; K. Hamilton, God is Dead: The Anatomy of a Slogan, 1966; R. W. Hepburn, 
Christianity and Paradox, 1958; J. Hick, Philosophy of Religion, 1963; Evil and the God of Love, 
1966; Arguments for the Existence of God, 1970; God and the Universe of Faiths, 1973; J. Hick, ed., 
The Existence of God, 1964; J. Hick and A. McGill, eds., The Many-Faced Argument, 1968; W. 
Hordern, Speaking of God: The Nature and Purpose of Theological Language, 1965; W. D. 
Hudson, A Philosophical Approach to Religion, 1974; F. von Higel, The Reality of God and 
Religion and Agnosticism, 1931; E. O. James, The Concept of Deity, 1950; D. Jenkins, Guide 
to the Debate about God, 1966; A. Kenny, The Five Ways, 1969; R. H. King, The Meaning 
of God, 1974; H. D. Lewis, Our Experience of God, 1959; B. Lonergan, Insight, 1957; Collection, 
1967; Philosophy of God and Theology, 1974; and A Second Collection, 1975; J. Macquarrie, 



Principles of Christian Theology, 1966; God-Talk, 1967; Thinking about God, 1975; T. McPherson, 
The Argument from Design, 1972; and Philosophy and Religious Belief, 1974; E. L. Mascall, 
He Who Is, 1943; Existence and Analogy, 1949; The Secularisation of Christianity, 1965; and 
The Openness of Being, 1971; W. 1. Matson, The Existence of God, 1965; W. R. Matthews, God in 
Christian Thought and Experience, 1930; H. Meynell, God and the World, 1971; B. Mitchell, The 
Justification of Religious Belief, 1973; B. Mitchell, ed., Faith and Logic, 1957; R. C. Neville, 
God the Creator: On the Transcendence and Presence of God, 1968; S. M. Ogden, The Reality of 
God, 1967; T. W. Ogletree, The “‘ Death of God” Controversy, 1968; J. Oman, The Natural and the 
Supernatural, 1931; R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 1925; H. P. Owen, The Moral Argument for 
Christian Theism, 1965; The Christian Knowledge of God, 1969; Concepts of Deity, 1971; and “‘God, 
Concepts of” in P. Edwards, ed., The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Ill 344-48; N. Pike, God and 
Timelessness, 1970; N. Pittenger, God in Process, 1967; A. Plantinga, God and Other Minds: A 
Study of the Rational Justification for Belief in God, 1967; and A. Plantinga, ed., The Ontological 
Argument, 1968; A. S. Pringle-Pattison, The Idea of God in the Light of Recent Philosophy, 1920; 
I. T. Ramsey, Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases, 1957; Christian 
Empiricism, 1974; I. T. Ramsey, ed., Words about God, 1971; J. A. T. Robinson, Honest to God, 
1963 (cf. D. L. Edwards, ed., The Honest to God Debate, 1963); and Exploration into God, 1967; 
N. H. G. Robinson, ‘“‘The logical placing of the name ‘God’ ”’, S/T 24, 1971, 129-48; F. Schaeffer, 
Escape from Reason, 1968; The God Who is There, 1968; and He is There and He is Not Silent, 1972; 
F. Sontag, Divine Perfection, 1962; G. F. Stout, God and Nature, 1952; A. E. Taylor, ‘“Theism’’, 
ERE XII 261-87; W. Temple, Nature, Man and God, 1934; F. R. Tennant, Philosophical Theology, 
Il, The World, the Soul and God, 1937; P. Tillich, Systematic Theology, I, 1953; T. F. Torrance, 
God and Rationality, 1971; I. Trethowan, The Basis of Belief, 1960; and Absolute Value: A Study 
in Christian Theism, 1970; B. Tyrrell, Bernard Lonergan’s Philosophy of God, 1974; G. N. A. Vesey 
et al., Talk of God: Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures 1967-1968, 1969; K. Ward, The Concept 
of God, 1974; C. C. J. Webb, Religion and Theism, 1934; V. White, God and the Unconscious, 1952; 
and God the Unknown, and Other Essays, 1956. A. N. Whitehead, Religion in the Making, 1926; 
and Process and Reality 1929. 

Godliness, Piety 

When faced with that which is awe-inspiring, sublime, or holy, man always keeps 
a respectful distance and sometimes is seized with fear. The idea of distance is 
basic to the sebomai group of words. They denote the appropriate attitude to that 
which merits reverence, ranging from respect for one’s fellow-men and the rules of 
society to reverence in public worship. On the other hand, the eulabés group of 
words has more the character of caution and circumspection, and with this back- 
ground came to be used for the normal religious attitude. The adj. sebomenos, 
which became the regular term for non-Jews who attached themselves to the syna- 
gogue, is discussed separately under —> Conversion (art. prosélytos). 

| ebAdpera ebAdfeia (eulabeia), fear, awe, piety; ebAafyc (eulabés), 
devout ; evAaféopuai (eulabeomai), to reverence, to be afraid. 
CL The eulabeia word-group is found in profane Greek from the 3rd or 4th cent. 

B.c. Originally it denoted caution, circumspection, discretion, and then in 
later Gk. reverence (cf. R. Bultmann, TDNT II 751; Liddell-Scott, 720). The 
meanings discretion, fear and reverence are found in early Christian literature 
(Lampe, 567). From the basic meaning of eulabeia there evolved the additional idea 
of fear, dread, anxiety. 

oT In the LXX the vb. in particular occurs frequently. The original meaning of 
eulabeomai, to take care, is clearly recognizable in Deut. 2:4; Sir. 18:27; 26:5. 



For that reason the word is not used for numinous terror (— Miracle). The 
meaning to—>fear predominates in the LXX: Exod. 3:6; 1 Sam. 18:15, 29 
(chiefly for the Heb. yaré’ or gir). It is frequently found in combination with 
Phobeisthai from which it cannot be sharply distinguished (e.g. in Jer. 5:22; Mal. 
3:16). But eulabeomai can also stand for the Heb. hasah; the appropriate transla- 
tion is then to trust, to seek or take refuge, or to honour (Nah. 1:7; Zeph. 3:12 and 
passim). eulabeomai thus approaches the idea of devoutness. The adj. eulabés, 
devout, godly, is found with the v./. eusebés in Mic. 7:2; Sir. 11:17; Acts 22:12. 
The noun eu/abeia is found in Jos. 22:24 and Wis. 17:8 with the meaning fear; in 
Prov. 28:14 it means circumspection. 

NT 1. eulabés occurs 4 times in the NT and means as in the LXX devout, God- 

fearing. Thus in Lk. 2:25 Simeon is described as dikaios kai eulabés, righteous 
and devout. In Acts 2:5 the witnesses from the Jewish diaspora on the day of 
—» Pentecost are described as ‘“‘devout men’’, likewise in Acts 8:2 the men who 
buried Stephen. In Acts 22:12 Ananias who was sent by the Lord to Saul is said to 
have been anér eulabés according to the law, i.e. his Jewish piety revealed itself 
in his keeping of the law. 

2. eulabeia occurs in the NT only in Heb. 5:7 and 12:28. In Heb. 5:7 the old 
translations differ in their understanding of the words eisakoustheis apo tés eulabeias. 
The Old Latin translates a metu, i.e. heard (set free) from his fear. The Vulgate 
rendering, however, is more likely: pro sua reverentia, Jesus was heard for his 
devoutness, i.e. his obedience (v. 8). The raising of Jesus from the dead was God’s 
answer to his Son’s supplication in the days of his flesh (cf. Phil. 2:8 ff.). In Heb. 
12:28 the understanding of eulabeia as fear is suggested by v. 29 (cf. Phil. 2:12, 
‘fear and trembling’’); but the rendering ‘“‘devoutness”’ is equally possible. The vb. 
eulabeisthai is found in the NT only in Acts 23:10 (eulabétheis as an alternative to 
Phobétheis, which has the same meaning but is better attested in the MSS; — fear), 
and in Heb. 11:7, where eulabétheis denotes the attitude of -~ Noah while building 
the ark; the translation “in the fear of God”? would seem to be correct. 

W. Mundle 
7, aéBopal (sebomai), to reverence, shrink back in fear, 
| oéBopal | cee ; ise 
worship; agefdCoual (sebazomai), show religious rever- 

ence, worship; aéfaaua (sebasma), object of religious reverence, holy thing, 
sanctuary; evaeféw (eusebed), reverence, be devout; evaéBeia (eusebeia), devout- 
ness, piety, fear of God, religion; edvaefyc (eusebés), God-fearing, devout, pious; 
JcocéfPeia (theosebeia), fear of God, reverence for God, devoutness; PJeocefyc 
(theosebés), devout, God-fearing; acéBeia (asebeia), impiety, godlessness; adoefyc 
(asebés), godless, impious; oguvoc (semnos), honourable, worthy of reverence, 
venerable, holy; ae“votyc (Semnotés), honourableness, dignity, holiness. 

cL |. The root seb- meant originally to step back from someone or something, to 
maintain a distance. From this spatial meaning, as contexts often gave the 
reason for maintaining a distance, there developed the metaphorical idea of tre- 
pidation ranging from shame, through wonder, to something approaching fear. 
| 9] 


This attitude is evoked by that whichis sublime and majestic, or by the risk of failure. 

The act. sebd (post-Homeric) is rare; as a rule the mid. forms sebomai or seba- 
zomai (from sebas) are used, The combination with eu (well, which in compounds 
was used to imply abundance) rarely occurs in the case of the vb. (eusebed); on the 
other hand the noun eusebeia and the adj. eusebés are frequently found. The word 
theosebeia, which in form conveys the more restricted idea of one’s attitude to- 
wards deities, does not in fact differ essentially either in use or meaning from 
eusebeia. sebasma is an object of religious reverence, an idol; in the plur. it often 
means the cult. 

The negative, asebés, asebeia, is used to denote an outrage against someone, 
whereby established laws and ordinances are broken. 

semnos and semnotés denote that which is sublime, majestic, holy, evoking 
reverence. The difference between these words and sebo is that they contain a 
stronger aesthetic element: thus a royal throne, an ornament, or sublime music 
can be so described. The adj. and the noun often denote the majesty of deity, but 
sometimes also the solemnity, serious purpose and grandeur of a man. 

2. Words deriving from the stem seb- are very frequent in Gk., and convey the 
idea of devoutness and religiousness so characteristic of the Greeks. This devoutness 
does not consist — as in the Bible — in a committed obedience to a single, personally- 
conceived God; but rather in a holy trepidation, wonder, or admiration called 
forth by a majesty in things, men or deities. Accordingly religious homage can be 
paid to very different objects: one’s country, a landscape, dreams, parents, heroes, 
the dead, etc. Later this basic idea fades, and sebomai can assume the meaning to 
bless or congratulate. 

For the Greeks those who are worthy of reverence are above all the members of 
one’s own family (including one’s ancestors), the gods and the laws ordained by 
them. In religious usage there is an easy transition from respect or honour to the 
reverence of the cult. eusebeia is one of the virtues of the man who is righteous and 
acceptable to the gods. 

The negative form asebeia likewise has an ethical and religious content. Because 
of the close connection between the ordinances of the Gk. city state (— People, 
art. polis cL) and the worship of the gods, the asebés is often named side by side with 
the adikos (—> sin); want of reverence for the gods and neglect of cultic obligations 
were considered anti-social. In the case of a man who was a misfit in the community, 
adikia was that aspect of his behaviour which was against the ordinances, while 
asebeia described that aspect which was against the gods. asebeia refers specifically 
to the cult of the state in Athenian trials for “impiety” (especially the one against — 
Socrates). In Greece the worship of the gods declined more and more in favour of | 
a philosophical ideal and an ethico-moral attitude. A philosopher could be an 
atheist (atheotés), and Christians also were described in this way because they did 
not reverence the old gods (cf. Lampe, 44f.). Being accused of denying the old 
gods, however, did not mean they were accused of asebeia; for the term asebés was 
reserved exclusively for the man with no religion and no morals (Liddell-Scott, 255). 

oT These ideas rarely appear in the LXX because the basis of OT piety is quite | 
different from that of Hellenism. God the creator lays claim to man’s service _ 
in thought, word and deed; he requires active obedience, not devout trepidation | 



to which lip-service is paid just on fixed occasions in cultic homage, or in the sphere 
of intellectual rhetoric. This active obedience, together with worship, is the charac- 
teristic feature of the fear of God (phobos theou, — Fear), which is essentially the 
OT (as opposed to the Gk.) idea of piety. Thus, in the few cases where eusebeia 
and its cognates are used, it usually renders words from the root ydaré’, to fear. 
But often they are without Heb. equivalent. For eusebeia see Prov. 1:7; 13:11; Isa. 
11:2; 33:6; Wis. 10:12; Sir. 49:3; 4 Macc. 5:18, 24, 31, 38; 6:2, 22 etc.; eusebed 
Dan. LXX Su. 64; 4 Macc. 9:6; 11:5, 8, 23; 18:2; eusebés Jud. 8:31; Job 32:3; Prov. 
12:12; 13:19; Eccl. 3:16; Sir. 11:17, 22; 12:2, 4; Isa. 24:16; 26:7; 32:8; 4 Macc. 
1:1, 7; 6:31; 7:16; 10:15 etc.; eusebds 4 Macc. 7:21. 

Only in the Wisdom literature, in Job and the Apocrypha (esp. 4 Macc.), do 
eusebeia and its related words occur more frequently —an indication of Hel. 
influence. The same is true of the semnos word-group (of which the noun and adv. 
appear once each, and the vb. not at all): out of 12 occurrences, 3 are in Prov., one 
is a v./., and all the rest are in Macc. This adj. describes that which is sublime, 
holy and thus worthy of God; in contrast with hagios (— holy), therefore, it is the 
aesthetic element which predominates. For semnos see Jdg. 11:35; Prov. 6:8; 8:6; 
15:26; 2 Macc. 6:11, 28; 8:15; 4 Macc. 5:36; 7:15; 17:5; for semnotés 2 Macc. 3:12; 
semnos 4 Macc. 1:17. 

In the LXX the negative compound asebés is used synonymously with adikos, 
unrighteous, unjust, and describes both an individual action and the general 
attitude of men, in departing from God. An injustice among men, particularly in 
Israel, is at the same time an offence against God and his commandments (cf. CL 
above). Thus asebeia and adikia stand very close to hamartia, — sin: social order 
and social justice are inseparable from worship. asebés renders some 16 Heb. 
expressions and is particularly frequent in Job (e.g. 3:17; 6:19; 8:13, 19f., 22; 
40:7[12]); Pss. (e.g. 1:1, 4 ff.; 9:23, 34 [10:2, 13]; 50[51]:13); and especially Prov. 
(e.g. 1:7, 10, 22, 32; 2:22; 3:25, 33, 35). For asebeia see, e.g., Deut. 9:4 f.; 18:22; 
Ps. 5:10; Prov. 1:19, 31; 11:5 f. The vb. asebed is rather less common than the adj. 
and the noun (e.g. Deut. 17:13; 18:20; Job 9:20 f.; 10:2f., 7, 15; 34: 8, 10). 

NT 1. In the NT this word-group is rarely found. Apart from the OT quotation in 

Mk. 7:7 par. Matt. 15:9 (= Isa. 29:13 LXX), sebomai occurs only in Acts, 
usually in its adjectival form as a technical term to denote the Gk. adherents of 
Jud. (— Conversion, art. prosélytos). In Acts 17:23 and 2 Thess. 2:4 sebasma is the 
heathen object of worship. sebazomai appears only in Rom. 1:25, where it means 
to show religious reverence. The vb. eusebed (only twice), the adj. eusebés (3 times), 
the adv. eusebos (twice) and the noun eusebeia (15 times) are, apart from 4 instances 
in Acts, confined to the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Pet. In Acts 25:21, 25 sebastos is 
simply the Greek translation of Augustus — the exalted one; in Acts 27:1 it is used 
adjectivally to describe a cohort as “imperial’’, a common designation of certain 
auxiliary cohorts. 

Like hosios (— holy) which frequently stands alongside dikaios (— righteous- 
ness), eusebés and eusebeia denote a moral attitude in the Gk.-speaking world. Both 
ideas occur frequently in Hel. Jud. They are almost entirely lacking in the earlier 
NT literature, though very much in evidence in the Pastoral Epistles. This fact is 
best explained by supposing that early Christianity used these words at first for 



non-Christian piety and that only later did the Pastoral Epistles and 2 Pet. give 
them Christian content. Exceptions are the negative forms asebeia, godlessness 
(in thought and attitude) and the adj. asebés, which are already found in Paul 

2. Whilst /atreud (— serve) is a neutral word for cultic worship, sebomai retains 
the anthropological emphasis of typical Gk. piety, 1.e. deference to that which is 
sublime and exalted. It is very difficult to use such language in relation to God and 
Christ, because the Christian is in personal union with them, a union in obedience 
and trust. 

In Rom. 1:18 Paul describes pre-Christian man as enslaved by asebeia and adikia 
‘“ungodliness and wickedness” (RSV; -—> sin), and states that the wrath of God 
rests upon him for giving divine honours to the creature rather than the creator 
(Rom. 1:25). He thus pronounces judgment upon all contemporary religious 
activity, for being wise in its own eyes, it fails to make any contact with the one true 
God and with his holy purpose either in the realm of worship or in that of inter- 
personal relationships. Here, as in the LXX, there is no longer a sharp distinction 
between asebeia and adikia (but cf. CL), because in the light of Christ’s revelation, 
both are hamartia (— sin). This important term gained ascendancy over asebeia, as 
indeed over all other terms which denote the outworkings of the power of evil. 

As in the OT, hamartolos and asebés can stand side by side in Paul to describe 
the sinner whom Christ makes righteous (cf. Rom. 5:6 with 5:8; Rom. 4:5). The 
Pastoral Epistles take over this association (1 Tim. 1:9; cf. 1 Pet. 4:18). But here 
asebeia is in particular the antithesis of the much used eusebeia. According to Tit. 
2:12, — grace leads us to turn away from an irreligious existence in order to live 
sophronos kai dikaios kai eusebos, soberly, uprightly and godly. In 2 Tim. 2:16 the 
false teachers’ alienation from God is described as asebeia. 

3. The word theosebés, which has the ring of Gk. piety about it, is used in Jn. 
9:31. The additional thought that piety consists in doing the will of God shows, 
however, that this statement is firmly rooted in OT-Jewish tradition. In Acts the 
fear of God is described by the combination of eusebés and phoboumenos (10:2): 
God is revered in that man fears him, i.e. offers him veneration, worship and sacri- 
fice. At the same time the appropriate distance is maintained, because man is a 
sinner. This also explains the technical term sebomenos used in Acts. It denotes those 
Gentiles who worshipped the God of the Jews without wholly belonging to his 
people, i.e. without circumcision and minute observance of the law (Acts 13:43, 50; 
16:14; 18:7; — Conversion, art. prosélytos). This group of words is naturally used 
also for Gentile veneration of the gods (cf. Acts 17:23; 19:27). 

4. The Pastoral Epistles use the relevant Gk. vocabulary more freely than the 
other NT writings, the probable reason being that — faith (pistis) is here more of a 
virtue than in Paul’s other epistles and now means primarily a Christian attitude 
to life. Only on that account can the OT phrase phobos theou (fear of God) be 
rendered so consistently by the Hel. eusebeia, though to be sure the attitude of the 
believer — zén eusebos en Christo Iésou, “live godly in Christ Jesus’ (2 Tim. 3:12; 
cf. 1 Clem. 1:2) —1is based on faith in Christ (1 Tim. 3:16; cf. 6:3), and its secretis | 
the revelation of God in the flesh. The NT devout person now understands himself - 
as a follower of Jesus Christ. Consequently devoutness becomes one in a series of | 
Christian virtues (1 Tim. 6:11; Tit. 1:1; 2:12). Thus pistis, faith, here takes on a © 


special colouring as compared with its use elsewhere in the NT. Good works are 
definitely included in it (1 Tim. 2:10; 5:4) — not however in the sense of justification 
by works which was precisely the error for which the false teachers are attacked 
(1 Tim. 4:7f.; 6:5f.; 2 Tim. 3:5). Faith is now seen as something ethical and 
relating to this world; only once is it defined in relation to its ultimate goal, the 
coming — kingdom of God (1 Tim. 4:8). 

5. The use of the semnotés group (noun 3 times, adj. 4 times) also fits into this 
framework. In Paul it is used only once (Phil. 4:8), where directions are being 
given to Christians for the conduct of their everyday lives. Otherwise it occurs 
almost exclusively in the Pastoral Epistles. semmnotés differs from eusebeia in that it 
indicates, without direct reference to God, an ethical and aesthetic outlook result- 
ing in decency and orderliness. Seriousness both of doctrine and of life is expected 
of the leaders of the church. By ruling their own families well and setting a good 
example, they are to bring up their children to be obedient and to lead honourable 
lives (1 Tim. 2:2; 3:4, 8; Tit. 2:2, 7). 

6. In Jude and 2 Pet. Christians are described as the righteous who live, like 
Noah and Lot, in the midst of asebeis, ungodly men (Jude 4, 15, 18; 2 Pet. 2:5f.; 
3:7). Here eusebeia is seen as the Christian manner of life, which keeps Christ’s 
return constantly in view (2 Pet. 3:11 f.). The Christian who lives in this expecta- 
tion attains to knowledge and is preserved from temptation (2 Pet. 1:3-8; 2:9). 

W. Giinther 

(a). R. Bultmann, eulabés etc., TDNT II 751-4; W. Foerster, sebomai etc., TDNT VII 168-96. 
(b). W. Foerster, “‘eusebeia in den Pastoralbriefen”’, NTS 5, 1958-9, 213 ff.; J. Jeremias, ‘“‘Hebr. 
5, 7-10”, ZNW 44, 1952-53, 107 ff.; E. M. Kredel and A. Auer, “‘Frommigkeit’’, LTK IV 398 ff. ; 
H. J. Schultz, Frémmigkeit in einer weltlichen Welt, 1959; A. Strobel, ““Die Psalmengrundlage der 
Gethsemane-Parallele Hebr. 5, 7 ff.”’, ZNW 45, 1954, 252 ff. 

Gold, Silver, Bronze, Iron 

| x pvrdc (chrysos), gold; ypuaiov (chrysion), a piece of 
| xpoode gold, gold coin; ypvadqm (chryso6), adorn with gold; 
ypvaobds (chrysous), golden. 

cL The Gk. word is a borrowing from the Near East, Heb. hariis, Assyr. hurasu. 

This may reflect the fact that gold was rare in Greece before Alexander the 
Great captured Persia’s stores of gold, but in Egypt, W. Arabia, in the mountains 
of Armenia and Persia gold was widely used and the goldsmith’s art perfected 
from the third millennium B.c. Hesiod in Works and Days wrote of a golden age 
and a golden race of men who reflected the glory of the immortals. 

oT In the LXX chrysos and chrysion, which became interchangeable terms, 
translate six different Heb. words for gold, of which the most common is 
zahab. These probably indicated differing degrees of purity in the gold which was 
often mixed with varying percentages of silver (cf. Gen. 2:11 f.). There were three 
ways of working gold. It could be melted and cast into moulds to form solid figures 
(Exod. 32:4), beaten into sheets with which objects could be covered (Exod. 25:11), 
or beaten into a particular shape (Exod. 25:31). Besides the cultic associations of 


gold in both the Tabernacle and the - Temple, in countries round about it was 
made into idols (Exod. 20:23). It was frequently used for jewellery (Gen. 41:42; 
Jdg. 8:26) and at a comparatively early date it was used for currency (2 Ki. 18:14; 
23:33). Since royalty throughout the ages made use of gold for crowns and thrones, 
cups and drinking bowls (1 Ki. 10:18, 21; Est. 1:7), gold became an appropriate 
gift for a king (Ps. 72:15). In Daniel’s interpretation of Nebuchadrezzar’s — dream 
the Babylonian king is the head of gold (Dan. 2:38). Because gold is indestructible 
it becomes a symbol for great value and enduring worth (Prov. 8:18 f.). 

NT In the NT the danger of covetousness and the association of idolatry colour the 

thinking of several writers (Acts 17:29; 20:33; 1 Tim. 2:9; Jas. 5:3; 1 Pet. 
1:18; Rev. 9:20). On the other hand, gold is presented to the infant Jesus (Matt. 
2:11; —» Gift; — Incense), and symbolizes lasting value (1 Cor. 3:12) and heaven’s 

perfection (Rev. 21:18, 21). J. G. Baldwin 
| dpypiov | apyvplov (argyr ion), silver; dpyvpoc (argyros), [less 
PIU frequent] silver; apyvpotc larereus), made of silver. 

CL The Gk. word derives from the adj. argos, shining, white, and occurs first in 
Homer. While the word denotes anything silver, it often has the significance of 
money. In Hesiod the silver age followed the golden and was inferior to it. 

oT In LXX argyrion translates the Heb. kesep, which occurs frequently in the OT, 

often in connection with gold. Silver had been known as early as gold, but it 
was less plentiful in ancient Babylon and Egypt. It is first mentioned in the Bible 
as a medium of exchange (Gen. 23:15) and this use predominates in the OT. But it 
was also used for jewellery (Exod. 3:22; Cant. 1:11) and was sometimes fashioned 
into an idol (Jdg. 17:3). Mining for silver is mentioned in Job 28:1, and because 
it was rarely found in pure form, but was most frequently mixed with other metals, 
it regularly needed refining and so became symbolic of God’s refining process in 
men’s hearts (Isa. 1:25; Zech. 13:9; Mal. 3:3). 

NT As in the case of gold, silver in the NT is associated with idolatry (Acts 17:29; 
19:24; Rev. 9:20). It is corruptible and a potential source of corruption (Matt. 

26:15); it is therefore an unworthy goal for living (Jas. 5:3; 1 Pet. 1:18). Indeed the 

follower of Jesus may be called upon to do without it altogether (Matt. 10:9). 

J. G. Baldwin 
[ xadnoc xadKd¢ (chalkos), copper, bronze (not brass, AV, RV), a 
a : copper coin; yadxiov (chalkion), a copper vessel or im- 

plement; yadxetc (chalkeus), coppersmith. 

CL Since copper was the first metal to be worked in Greece, chalkos became the © 
word for metal in general and applied at first also to iron. Later it also included — 
bronze, copper to which a small amount of tin had been added. | 



oT In the LXX copper (Heb. n°hdSet) is first mentioned, together with iron, in 

connection with Tubal-Cain, who made cutting instruments (Gen. 4:22). This 
draws attention to an important development in the history of mankind. Copper 
weapons, mace heads, helmets, axe blades, were developed in the Early Bronze 
period, and a cache of 450 copper objects, including a socketed axehead of c. 3100 
found at Nahal Mishmar in the Judean desert in 1961, has pushed back into the 
fourth millennium the achievement of high technical standards. Bronze probably 
made its appearance c. 2000 B.c., but copper remained in use for objects which did 
not need to be cast, and both metals became much more common from this time 
on. A hard cutting edge was achieved on this soft metal by hammering. 

The altar of sacrifice in the tabernacle was bronze covered (Exod. 38:2), whereas 

its carrying rings were cast (38:5), and Solomon imported Hiram from Tyre to 
oversee the lavish bronze and copper work connected with the Temple (1 Ki. 7:13- 
47). Copper smelting was carried out as early as 4000 B.c. at Timnah, a mining 
site about 15 miles north of Elath. It was here that N. Glueck thought (in 1940) 
he had found King Solomon’s mines, but B. Rothenberg has now proved that 
Egyptians operated these mines in the 14th—12th centuries B.c. In 1974 a network 
of underground mines and shafts, penetrating for hundreds of yards in all direc- 
tions and at several levels, was excavated. These mines are at least a thousand 
years older than the earliest previously explored underground mines. The deepest 
workings are several hundred feet below the surface and are supplied with ventila- 
tion by air channels, roughly the diameter of a thumb, yet very few technical errors 
were noted. The description of mining in Job 28:1-11 will be illuminated by the 
new evidence now available. 
([F. F. Bruce] In Ezek. 1:4, 27; 8:2 hasSmal, which LXX renders élektron, elec- 
trum, silver-gold alloy, may mean brass [like Accad. el/mesu]; the imagery of 
Ezekiel’s inaugural vision “‘will have been suggested to him... by... the work of 
a Babylonian brass-founder” [G. R. Driver, ““Ezekiel’s Inaugural Vision”, VT 1, 
1951, 60-62].) 

NT The word occurs only 6 times in the NT meaning copper coin (Matt. 10:9; 
Mk. 6:8; 12:41), the material from which an idol is made (Rev. 9:20), a 
commodity of merchandise (Rev. 18:12) and a clanging gong (1 Cor. 13:1), such 
as was used in various cults and here symbolizing the emptiness of speaking in 
tongues when devoid of understanding and love. The compound chalkolibanon 
(Rev. 1:15) describes an alloy, the exact nature of which is not known. 
J. G. Baldwin 

; atdnpoc (sidéros), iron; aldnpoic (sidérous), made of 
| aténpos poe tl ( ) npoos ( ) 

cL The Gk. word meant not only iron but also anything made of iron and a place 

for selling iron. In Homer’s time iron was highly valued and pieces were given 
as prizes. Hesiod considered the Iron Age in which he lived to be the epitome of 
human evil. The word is used symbolically by Homer to mean hard, stubborn, 

oT In the LXX the word occurs frequently, translating Heb. barzel (Aram. parzel). 
Anatolian armourers were experimenting as early as the third millennium B.c. 



with iron blades for swords, and one example from Dorak is dated 2500 B.c. The 
metallurgy of iron is believed to have been developed by the Hittites during the 
second millennium B.c. Deuteronomy mentions “‘the iron furnace’”’ (Deut. 4:20), 
and it will be interesting to see how old smelting crucibles in the Sinai and Negev 
regions prove to be. Hittite iron was brought to Palestine by merchants from Tyre 
and later by the Philistines, who monopolized the blacksmith’s art (1 Sam. 13:19, 
20). The Canaanites had chariots of iron (i.e. with iron fittings) in the Judges period 
(Jos. 17:16; Jdg. 1:19; 4:3). By the time of David iron was used for nails (1 Chr. 
22:3), though bronze was still being used in large quantities. The OT uses iron as a 
symbol of strength (Ps. 2:9; Jer. 1:18), endurance and hardness (Job 19:24; Mic. 
4:13), and cruelty (Dan. 7:7, 19; Amos 1:3). In Nebuchadrezzar’s image (Dan 2) 
iron with clay represented the last human kingdom before God’s kingdom filled the 

NT In the NT the word is used in a symbolic sense (Rev. 2:27; 9:9; 12:5; 19:15), 
and an item of merchandise (Rev. 18:12). Rev. 2:27; 12:5; and 19:15 
interpret Ps. 2:9 christologically as a picture of Christ reigning in —> judgment. The 
iron sceptre may have been a short-handled battle mace (A. A. Anderson, The 
Book of Psalms, 1, 1972, 69). J. G. Baldwin 

D. R. Bowes, “‘Bronze’’, ZPEB I 655 f.; “Gold”, ZPEB II 771f.; “Iron”, ZPEB III 307 ff.; 
“Silver”, ZPEB V 437 f.; N. Glueck, ‘““Ezion-geber’’, BA 88, 1965, 70-87 (this article revises some 
of the author’s earlier opinions); A. Negev, ed., Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy Land, 
1972, 208-11; B. Rothenberg, PEQ 104, 1962, 5-71; S. M. Paul and W. G. Dever, eds., Biblical 
Archaeology, 1973, 193-204; C. Singer, E. J. Holmyard, A. R. Hall and T. I. Williams, eds., A 
History of Technology, 1, 1954, 582-88. 

Good, Beautiful, Kind 

Just as the concept — evil can have different, distinct shades of meaning, the ideas 
contained in the concept good are expressed in NT Gk. by three word-groups, each 
with its own separate emphasis. agathos is used generally for what is good and 
useful, especially moral goodness in relation to God who is perfect. kalos can be 
used as a synonym, but in comparison with the ethical and religious emphasis of 
agathos, it stresses more the aesthetic aspect, and stands for beautiful, fine, free 
from defects. When applied to acts, it means noble, praiseworthy. For Plato the 
kalon is the realization of the agathon in the sphere of objects. chréstos expresses the 
material usefulness of things with regard to their goodness, pleasantness and soft- 

er ae ayaddoc (agathos), good; dyadoepyéw (agathoergeo), 

| yao do good; ayadonolém (agathopoied), do good; 

ayafonoidc (agathopoios), doing good, one who does good; dyadonoiia 

(agathopoiia), doing good; aya@wotyvn (agathosyné), goodness, uprightness, gener- 


CL As an adj. in secular Gk. agathos means serviceable and good; used in con- 
junction with a noun it denotes the excellence of the object described. Used as a 




noun, to agathon and the plur. ta agatha mean the good or good things which evoke 
a state of well-being. They may be material, intellectual, moral or religious, 
depending on one’s ideal for life. It is only agathos itself which is used with this 
wide range of meaning from the time of Homer to Koine Gk. All the other deriva- 
tives listed above do not occur until the LXX or the NT. Cl. Gk. used euergeted 
and other terms in their place. 

1. In Gk. philosophy the concept of the good plays a major réle. For Plato the 
idea of the good is the all-embracing, highest, and indeed dominant idea or form. 
For the good is the power which preserves and supports in contrast to evil which 
spoils and destroys (Rep. 608 e). In Plato the idea of the good has a religious 
colouring (Rep. 517 b 7-c 4), but Aristotle applies it as a formal concept to the 
totality of human relations. In his Ethics he defines the goal of all action as the 
attainment of some form of good (Eth. Nic. 1, 1; cf. F. Copleston, A History of 
Philosophy, I, 1946, 160 ff., 177 ff., 332-50; W. Grundmann, agathos, TDNTI 11 f.). 

2. In Hel. thought the ancient humanistic attitude to life was shattered (— 
Foreign, art. xenos) and the predominant meaning of the concept of good is once 
again religious. According to the Hermetic writings, the salvation brought about 
by the deity, i.e. deification, is the good (Corp. Herm. 1, 26). Thus the predicate 
good was reserved for the deity who brings salvation (to agathon ho theos, God is 
the good; 2, 16; cf. 1, 7; 6, 3 f.; 11, 17), for he alone is free from attachment to the 
material (cf. W. Grundmann, TDNT I 12 f.). 

As an expounder of Hel. Jud., Philo names enkrateia (moderation, Spec. Leg. 1, 
149), eusebeia (fear of God, Spec. Leg. 4, 147) and sophia (wisdom, Rer. Div. Her. 
98) as the highest possessions by means of which the soul finds the way to God, 
the highest good (W. Grundmann, TDNT I 13). 

oT 1. In the OT the concept of the good is indissolubly linked with personal faith 

in God. An idea of the good, freed from the concept of God as personal — 
comparable with the ideas in Gk. and Hel. thought — is inconceivable. The good 1s 
always a gift from God and as such is outside the control of man in his own strength 
(Gen. 3:5). It is presupposed throughout that God is the One who is good, and 
not just “the good.”’ This realization is further developed within the OT in the 
course of a deepening of the relationship of the people and of individuals to God 
(e.g. Pss. 34:10 [MT 34:11]; 84:11 [MT 84:12]; 23:6). 

Thus ¢6b became the regular designation of the goodness of God’s character or 
actions. The LXX translates t6b in this connection almost exclusively by to agathon, 
and thus approaches thé Graeco-Hellenistic outlook. It only rarely employs the 
nearly synonymous — kalos (e.g. Gen. 1:18). Thus God, according to the usage of 
the LXX, becomes man’s highest good, and man finally becomes the lord of this 
good in the sense that he acquires a right to “good” treatment, as long as he regards 
God as his highest good. 

2. That —> God is the One who is good is made clear in the OT through his saving 
dealings with his chosen people, in the giving of the — law (Deut. 30:15; Prov. 
28:10), in the historical events of the Exodus from — Egypt and the conquest of 
Canaan (Exod. 18:9; Num. 10:29 ff.). The Israelite found renewed reason for 
praising God as the One who is good in the knowledge that everything that comes 
from him is good, whether it be his work in creation (Gen. 1:18; t6b here also 



embraces the aesthetic moment of beauty), his —> word (Isa. 39:8), his — spirit 
(Ps. 143:10), even when appearances seem to say the opposite (Gen. 50:20). 

The constant tension between God’s — promises and their incomplete — fulfil- 
ment was bearable for Israel, because they recognized that God’s promises in all 
their temporal fulfilments always look beyond themselves towards a final, escha- 
tological fulfilment. The good which God has promised to his people will come to 
its real fulfilment in messianic, eschatological salvation. It is in this sense that texts 
like Isa. 52:7 and Jer. 32:41 have been interpreted messianically by Israel. 

Recognition of the goodness of God could not be taken away from the — 
remnant even by hard, shattering, historical events like the exile. Nevertheless, 
Yahweh’s goodness, his benevolent action in history, had been temporarily with- 
drawn from Israel and was deeply concealed. In the Wisdom literature, for example, 
striking expression is given to the way in which man saw his own limitations without 
illusion in the presence of the incomprehensible God. He recognizes the uncer- 
tainty of all life’s values and the vanity of existence (Eccl. 3:12; 5:17), and sees 
clearly man’s inability to achieve good (Eccl. 7:20). But in the last analysis even 
this scepticism, in which God is withdrawn and man stands alone, could not destroy 
the knowledge of the goodness of God, of his benevolent activity. 

Post-exilic Judaism and Rab. theology also held firmly to the fact that God is 
good. For Rab. Judaism God’s goodness brings salvation. It is revealed in the 
Law which is good and can be carried out. In carrying out God’s law, man 
can now himself do good and be good (SB III 92 f.; IV 466 ff., 536 ff.). Neverthe- 
less, essential goodness can only be realized in a man’s personal relationships with 
God and with his fellow-men (Mic. 6:8). 

3. The Qumran sect by the Dead Sea radicalized this unshaken confidence that 
good could be achieved into a strict asceticism, and linked it with the command to 
hate for ever the sons of wickedness. But here too — as consistently throughout the 
OT — it is the newly emerging songs of praise which are the genuine expressions of 
the sect’s piety. They begin and end with the praise of God and his benevolent 
actions even in the midst of need and oppression. What stands out is what has been 
asserted in every period of Israel’s history and expressed most completely in the 
Psalms (e.g. Pss. 16:2; 118:1; cf. 1 Chr. 16:34, 2 Chr. 5:13), namely that God 
himself is the One who is really and exclusively good. In the language of the LXX, 
he is the highest good. 

NT agathos occurs very frequently (107 times) in all the NT writings except Rev. 

(where ka/os does not occur either). The compounds formed with poieo are 
rare, and are found almost exclusively in | Pet. (apart from 3 occurrences of 
agathopoieé in Lk.). agathoergeo occurs only once (1 Tim. 6:18), and agathdsyné 
in 4 places in the Pauline writings. 

1. According to the Synoptics, the OT statement about God’s essential goodness 
is radicalized in Jesus’ preaching: oudeis agathos ei mé heis ho theos, no one is good 
save God alone (Mk. 10:17 f.; Lk. 18:18 f.; Matt. 19:17). However, this does not 
prevent a natural application of the predicate ‘‘good’’ to the moral differences 
between men, who do good as well as evil (Matt. 12:35; 25:21; and par. Lk. 6:45; 
19:17), an application which includes within it the goodness of God (Matt. 5:45; 
22:10 and often). 



But this admission of normal differences and the demand for works of love 
(Matt. 5:16; 25:31-45, where — kalos is used instead of agathos) must not be 
separated from Jesus’ preaching as a whole. Jesus calls sinners to repentance. In 
this connection it is impossible to ignore the call, “Unless your righteousness 
exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of 
heaven” (Matt. 5:20). ““You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is 
perfect” (Matt. 5:48). 

2. Jn. 5:29 proclaims judgment according to works. But this statement too has 
to be seen within the context of the whole message (cf. Jn. 10:27—29; 15:5 ff.). 
It is only in Jesus Christ that man is given a new opportunity of existence. In so far 
as he receives a share in God’s goodness he also can pass on good to others by 
doing good. According to Jn. 10:11 and 14, Jesus is the good (— kalos) — shepherd 
who lays down his life and makes available here and now the eternal good of 
redemption. In these passages kalos is used as a synonym for agathos. In Jn. 1:46 
(in the form of a proverb?) the sceptical question is posed, ‘““Can anything good 
(agathon, i.e. salvation) come out of Nazareth?” ({[Ed.] L. Morris points out that 
the question does not reflect any known opinion of Nazareth; it is most likely to be 
understood as the utterance of a man who could not conceive of the messiah 
coming from such an insignificant place. The difference between agathos and kalos 
in Jn. appears to be grammatical: agathos is used predicatively at 1:46 and 7:12, 
as a noun at 5:29, while kalos is always attributive (The Gospel according to John, 
1972, 165; cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, The Bible Translator 11, 1960, 173 f.).) 

3. Paul takes up the message of the Synoptic Gospels. He too acknowledges the 
relative difference between good and evil men. Within God’s sustaining order of 
things, the civil authorities receive their dignity and task to maintain law and order 
and punish evildoers (Rom. 13:1-4). The concept agathopoios, used only in | Pet. 
2:14, also belongs in this context: the man who does right will receive praise from 
the authorities. 

But the distinction which is justified among human institutions breaks down 
before God. The natural man is irretrievably in bondage to the powers of — sin 
and — death, and has no right to claim the attribute “‘good’”’ for himself. Even if he 
is a fanatical observer of the law, which is good, it only works death for him 
(Rom. 7:18 ff.; cf. 3:20; 6:23; Gal. 3:10 ff.). But through the redemption which 
has taken place in Christ goodness overflows the believer. ““We know that in 
everything God works for good with those who love him, who are called according 
to his purpose” (Rom. 8:28 RSV, cf. v./. in RSV mg “in everything he works for 
good’’, or “everything works for good’’; see M. Black, “The Interpretation of 
Romans viii 28” in Neotestamentica et Patristica, Supplements to NovT 6, Fest- 
schrift for O. Cullmann, 1962, 166-72; and Romans, 1973, 124; cf. also Rom. 11:32- 

In Christ the believer is created for good works (Eph. 2:10), and receives a good 
—> conscience (cf. Acts 23:1; 1 Tim. 1:5, 19). This also underlies the urgent exhor- 
tations to bear — fruit in good works (Col. 1:10), to seek to do good (1 Thess. 
5:15) and to do it to everyone (Rom. 15:2; 16:19; Gal. 6:6, 10). Likewise, in Rom. 
15:14 (cf. 2 Thess. 1:11) believers are exhorted to agathdsyné, good and fitting 
behaviour. agathos is essentially a quality which a man has (TDNT I 16f., 18). 

All honour is due to the one who does good (Rom. 2:7). Paul also maintains the 



concept of judgment according to works (2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 3:10). But comparison 
with Rom. 8:31-—39 is not intended. The gift and the task of the new life are kept in 
tension, with both aspects fully emphasized. Just as kalos can stand for agathos, 
Paul employs kalopoied (2 Thess. 3:13) and agathoerged once (1 Tim. 6:18), as 
synonymous expressions meaning to do good. agathoergeo also occurs once in 
Acts 14:17, where it refers to God who does good. A striking fact is the marked 
preference for — kalos as opposed to agathos in the Pastorals. 

4. In the remaining NT writings agathapoied, to do good, is used only in 1 Pet. 
2:15, 20; 3:6, 17; 3 Jn. 11; and Lk. 6:9, 33, 35. agathopoiia, doing good, is em- 
ployed only in 1 Pet. 4:19. Such right action is the visible proof that a man has 
really and gratefully grasped the new opportunity for existence as his own. | Pet. 
3:16, 21 indicate the good conscience which the believer ought to demonstrate to 
the pagan. 

In contrast, Heb. 9:11 and 10:1 lay their emphasis upon future, eschatological 
gifts (cf. 1 Pet. 4:19). In this age there is a permanent tension between God, who is 
good and who gives good gifts, and reality, characterized by sin and death, in 
which the Christian’s life is caught up. It is in this perspective that the promise of 
Phil. 1:6 stands and has meaning: ““He who began a good work in you will bring 
it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.’ Therefore the warning of Gal. 6:9 
also holds good: ‘‘Let us not grow weary in well-doing, for in due season we shall 
reap, if we do not lose heart.”’ E. Beyreuther 

16 Kaddc (kalos), good, beautiful, noble; xadozoigw 
| asacliaes | (kalopoieo), do good. 
cL 1. kalos (cf. Sanskrit kalya, healthy, strong, excellent) has as its basic meaning: 
organically fit, suitable, useful, sound, e.g. a suitable harbour (Homer); a 
healthy body (Plato); pure, genuine gold (Theognis); an unblemished sacrifice 
(Xenophon). Aesthetic judgments were very early attached to the concept of the 
fit and organically sound. kalos then also came to mean the aesthetically beautiful. 
Finally the concept was broadened again and gained the additional sense of 
morally good (Sophocles, Pindar and others). Thus, in the course of the history of 
Greek thought, the concept kalos achieved an inclusive meaning, linked with taxis 
(order) and symmetria (symmetry). In this context kalos came to mean “‘the total 
state of soundness, health, wholeness and order, whether in external appearance 
or internal disposition. For the Gk., then, the term applies particularly to the world 
of the divine’ (W. Grundmann, kalos TDNT III 537). 

2. A Greek ideal for life and education was expressed by the phrase kalos kai 
agathos which showed the aristocracy how it should live. An education based on 
the arts and exemplary behaviour moulded the nobleman in the ethics of his class. 
In Homer it is an expression of ancient European aristocratic pride among the 
leading tribes of Greece. For them inherited position had to be earned afresh by 
meeting high and inexorable demands. It had to be embraced along with a heroic 
bearing, self-discipline, and the will to be fair in all dealings between noble and 

commoner. Thus kalos and agathos were united in the single concept kalos kagathos 
(cf. W. Grundmann, TDNT III 538 f.). 



Socrates and Plato raised this chivalrous class-ethic to the position of the 
general goal of all Gk. educational principles. In their writings the kalos kagathos 
is a man who is respectful and fair, thoughtful and discreet, moderate and capable 
in the way he conducts his life, a man for whom everything is in order (Grg. 470e, 
518a—c; Rep. 3, 425d). 

3. Finally Plato raised the concept kalos in the sphere of philosophy and religion 
to the status of an eternal idea by linking it with the experience of erds (— love). 
The unremitting longing and striving of the soul is directed towards the kalon. 
erds is the force which drives men to seek and to recognize the ka/on in this world 
(Symp. 204, 211 ff.; cf. Phdr. 249 ff.). That which links the divine and earthly realms 
and which gives life meaning and an eternal dimension is the kalon. Earthly beauty 
partakes of the eternal archetype of the beautiful. This religious significance which 
Plato’s doctrine of ideas imparted to the concept kalos was retained throughout the 
development of Hellenistic Christian thought. For Plotinus the kalon was what 
flowed forth, the equivalent of the idea (Enneads, 1, 6; cf. 6; 7). Ecstasy, as a 
glimpse of the eternal beauty, is the highest experience. It is granted only to beauti- 
ful souls who grow to maturity on earth through the virtues of self-discipline, 
fearlessness and freedom from attachment. 

For Augustine, too, and for Thomas Aquinas true beauty is at one with the 
eternally true and good, and is only found with God; everything on earth is merely 
a reflection of the divine beauty (cf. Augustine, De Civ. 19, 3; 22, 19; De Pulchro; 
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, 1 Q. 5, 4; 1? 2?* Q. 27, 1). 

oT The meaning which the Greeks gave to kalos, which became decisive for 

Christian antiquity and via Christendom for the development of thought 
throughout the western world, scarcely penetrated the world of the OT or the NT. 
In the LXX kalos is used as the translation of yapeh (e.g. Gen. 12:14; 29:17; 39:6; 
41:2) and denotes a beautiful external appearance. But kalos occurs most fre- 
quently beside —- agathos and — chréstos as a translation of t6b. It means good, 
not so much in the sense of an ethical evaluation as in that of pleasant, enjoyable, 
beneficial. kalos, as opposed to agathos, is what is pleasing to Yahweh, what he 
likes or what gives him joy, whereas agathos suggests more the application of an 
ethical standard. But it is impossible to draw any clear-cut lines of demarcation 
for the basic meaning of the Heb. 76), for it contains both aspects. Only in one 
place does the use of kala give rise to what is probably the expression of an aesthetic 
judgment (Gen. 1:31). Perhaps one should translate even here kai idou kala lian 
as “‘and behold [it was] completely successful” (cf. MT: ‘‘and behold it was very 
good’’). It means fair or beautiful in, e.g., Gen. 6:6; 12:14; 2 Sam. 11:2; 13:1. 
Otherwise it is striking that there is no room in the OT for the Greek ideal of beauty 
as a motive for living and for education. Everything is directed towards the will of 
God which is expressed in the law. Any ideal of self-perfection is thus excluded. 
Hence kalos is frequently used as a synonym for — agathos (cf. Mal 2:17; Mic. 
6:8; Isa. 1:17; and also Num. 24:1; Deut. 6:18; 12:28; 2 Chr. 14:2 [MT 14:1]; 
and later Prov. 3:4). In the story of the fall kalos is used in the description of the 
tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17; cf. v. 18; 3:5 f., 22). The LXX 
translates the Heb. 16b ward‘ by kalon kai ponéron, “‘good and evil” (—» Adam; — 
Evil; —-~ Knowledge; — Sin). 



NT It is striking that in the NT kalos is used almost as frequently as agathos to 
denote good, and this happens consistently throughout the NT writings 
(agathos 104 times; kalos 99). 

1. In the Synoptic Gospels, John the Baptist demanded from those who would 
enter the fellowship of the ~ kingdom good — fruit (karpon kalon, Matt. 3:10 
par. Lk. 3:9). Jesus made the same demand (Matt. 7:17 ff.; 12:33; cf. Lk. 6:43 ff.). 
The parables speak of good seed (kalon sperma), good men (kaloi) who are caught 
in the net (Matt. 13:24, 27, 37, 38), and good ground (kalé gé) in which the word 
flourishes (Matt. 13:23 par. Mk. 4:20 Lk. 8:15). It is in this sense that Jesus 
calls men to good — works (kala erga, Matt. 5:16). Once again kalos is used al- 
most synonymously with agathos. The fine or good works which Jesus expects are 
summed up in the maxim of Matt. 25:40, “As you did it to one of the least of these 
my brethren, you did it to me.’ They remain connected with the works of love 
which served as directives for the practice of mercy in Judaism (cf. Isa. 58:6-7, 
where they are already listed). At the same time the kala erga are removed from all 
thought of striving after reward (cf. Lk. 10:30 ff., the parable of the Good Samari- 
tan; — Reward). 

In the story of the anointing at Bethany (Mk. 14:6) Jesus, aware of his imminent 
passion, placed the deed of love which had been done to him higher than the alms- 
giving of his disciples. The opportunity for this act — the anticipatory anointing of 
his body and thus the affirmation by his disciples of his path of suffering — only 
offered itself in this historical moment. 

2. In Jn. Jesus is the good — shepherd (ho poimén ho kalos). Here kalos is used 
to bring into focus his office as shepherd in all its uniqueness, in contrast to con- 
temporary false claims to the office of shepherd and to the shepherd-gods of anti- 
quity (Jn. 10:11, 14). He is the good, the lawful shepherd, because he opposes the 
wolf at the risk and at the cost of his life. ([Ed.] This may be seen against the OT 
background of Yahweh as shepherd [Gen. 49:24; Pss. 23; 78:52 f.]. The patriarchs 
were shepherds. Ungodly kings were denounced as wicked shepherds [1 Ki. 22:17; 
Jer. 10:21; 23:1 f.]. Ezek. 34:5 f. pictures Israel as a flock without a shepherd and 
Yahweh as the true shepherd [vv. 11-16]. Cf. C. K. Barrett, JTS 48, 1947, 163 f.; 
R. E. Brown, The Gospel according to John, I, 1966, 397 f.) 

Jn. 10:31 speaks of Jesus’ many good works (polla erga kala) in the context of a 
controversy with the Jews. It is not the works that are in dispute, but his messianic 
claim, the evidence for which is in these very works. 

3. Paul employs kalos as a synonym for — agathos; it does not convey anything 
which could not be expressed by agathos (cf. Rom. 7:18, 21; 2 Cor. 13:7; Gal. 
6:9; 1 Cor. 7:1, 8, 26). 

4. On the other hand, the preference for kalos in the Pastorals is striking (cf. 
1 Tim. 5:10, 25; 6:18; Tit. 2:7, 14; 3:8, 14; 1 Tim. 3:1). Military imagery, in 
particular, is linked with the concept kalos (cf. 1 Tim. 6:12; 2 Tim. 2:3; 1 Tim. 
1:18; 2 Tim. 4:7). But in other contexts kalos is used remarkably often instead of 
agathos (cf. | Tim. 1:8; 3:7; 3:13; 4:6; 6:19; 2 Tim. 1:14; 1 Tim. 4:4). The reason 
for this usage here is clear. The word was a favourite in popular Hellenistic speech 
and it expressed a Hellenistic sense of values. It is used here in order to express 
the more clearly for the second generation of Christians what characterizes disciple- 
ship of Christ. In any case, both OT and NT right on into the Catholic Epistles 


(Jas. 2:7; 3:13; 4:17; 1 Pet. 2:12; 4:10) demonstrate a use of the term kalos which, 
without undergoing any change of meaning, is freely employed to express Biblical 

ideas in the context of Gk. language and thought. E. Beyreuther 
| xpnatéc | ypnatoc (chréstos), mild, pleasant, kind, good; 
APUETOS ypnatotye (chréstotés), goodness, kindness, friendliness; 

xX pnatevopal (chrésteuomai), show kindness. 

CL chréstos originally denoted usefulness, and hence what appeared useful, good, 

suitable and proper (e.g. mild wine). This was very soon followed by the broad- 
ening of the concept to include moral excellence and perfection, in which inner 
greatness was linked with genuine goodness of heart. So chréstos meant morally 
good and honourable, the capacity to show kindness to everyone. Used as a noun, 
to chréston meant a friendly nature, kindness; in the plur. ta chrésta, kind actions 
(Herodotus). In the same way the noun, hé chréstotés, from Euripides on, acquired 
the meaning of friendliness, kindness, mildness, and was used in inscriptions as a 
title of honour for rulers and important public figures. 

oT 1. Inthe LXX the Hebrew word (66 in its many shades of meaning is translated 

by chréstos along with — agathos and — kalos. There is little contemplation 
in the OT of the goodness of God in and of itself. On the other hand, his bene- 
volent activity is constantly sung and recognized in hymns of praise. chréstos and 
chréstotés are favourite, although not the only, words for expressing the abundance 
of good which God in his — covenant faithfulness displays to his people and to all 
men as his creatures. This constant mercy and readiness to help on the part of 
God is one of the essential themes of the Pss. (e.g. 25:7 f.; 31:19 [MT 31:20]; 65:11 
[MT 65:12]). But chréstos also occurs in prophetic texts, especially in Jeremiah 
(e.g. 40[33]:11; cf. 24:2 f., 5). This picture of the kindness of God grows deeper 
in the face of the bewildering recognition of the enduring nature of sin. Yet he still 
remains kind! Nor could the fate of the nation after the exile, with its conviction 
that God’s dealings are incomprehensible, suppress the acknowledgment that Yah- 
weh is kind (cf. 2 Macc. 1:24). 

2. The Qumran documents continue the same train of thought. Just as the OT 
expected the pious, for his part, to show kindness which should reflect the kindness 
he had received from God, the sect also expected its members to show gracious 
kindness to one another. The often recurring phrase used to denote this is ’ah*bat 
hesed, gracious love (e.g. 1QS 2:24; 5:4, 25; 8:2). Beside mercy (rah*mim) and 
patience the Spirit of Light shows “‘eternal kindness” (t6b ‘6lamim, cf. 1QS 4:3). 
But in unexpected juxtaposition to the demand for gracious kindness towards one 
another stands the command for “eternal hatred’’ of the sons of wickedness (1QS 
4:17). Here we can see, as it was radicalized in later Judaism, the limitation of the 
OT command to love or show kindness which was not taken to include uncondi- 
tional love of one’s enemies. 

NT In the NT chréstos occurs 7 times; hé chréstotés 10 times; the former 3 times, 
the latter exclusively in Paul. 
1. chréstos is used of things, as in secular Gk., to denote their goodness (Lk. 5:39, 
good wine). 


2. The concept is used in Lk. to break down the limitation of the OT command- 
ment to love (Lk. 6:35). God’s kindness embraces even the ungrateful, and the 
wicked (obstinate sinners); because it is without limit, it calls for unconditional 
love for their enemies on the part of Jesus’ disciples. Jesus invited those who had 
become exhausted by legalistic piety to take upon themselves his easy yoke (ho gar 
zygos mou chréstos, Matt. 11:30). In experiencing his kindness, men are to be 
like him in showing kindness towards others (v. 29). 

3. While chréstos only appears 3 times in the Synoptic Gospels, the Johannine 
writings and the Catholic epistles do not employ the word at all. But Paul makes 
striking use of it together with the noun chréstotés which he prefers. 

In his attack on self-righteous Jewish piety he shows that the goodness of God 
is no cheap grace which is there to be made a convenience of. It should lead to a 
horror of one’s unwillingness to repent so that God’s aim of converting men to 
himself may be achieved (Rom. 2:4). 

Especially in his use of the noun hé chréstotés the apostle makes repeated use of 
the idea of the incomprehensible kindness of God. He does not desire the death 
of the sinner but his salvation (Rom. 11:22; Eph. 2:7; Tit. 3:4). His purpose is to 
show the meaning of kindness in the life of the man whom Christ has grasped. 
Kindness and gentleness belong to the visible gifts of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). Love 
(— art. agapé) shows itself as kindness (1 Cor. 13:4, expressed here by the vb. 
chrésteuetai hé agapé). For kindness is an unmistakable and essential characteristic 
of love. Because kindness is one of the chief gifts of the Spirit, it becomes the subject 
of the exhortation of Col. 3:12: “‘Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, compassion, 
kindness.”’ As a direct out-working of agapé, it is always alive and active, breaking 
out spontaneously in the life of the man who is led by Christ. This completes the 
circle from the original kindness of God who created the world and men, separated 
a people for himself, and remains kind despite sin and wickedness, to the revelation 
of his incomprehensible kindness in Jesus Christ in the fullness of — time. Here 
God’s saving activity reaches its — goal. In Jesus Christ God’s fatherly kindness 
can be seen as in a mirror. Moreover, the members of the Christian community, 
the church, have to choose as their path in the world the way of kindness which 
they must show to all men. At the same time they have to choose it in a world which 
often betrays little sign of it. 

E. Beyreuther 

(a). W. Barclay, Flesh and Spirit, 1962, 97-102; M. Buber, Good and Evil: Two Interpretations, 
1953; G. W. Buchanan, ““The Old Testament Meaning of the Knowledge of Good and Evil’, JBL 
75, 1956, 114-20; W. M. Clark, ‘‘A Legal Background to the Yahwist’s Use of ‘Good and Evil’ in 
Genesis 2-3’, JBL 88, 1969, 266-78; I. Engnell, “‘ ‘Knowledge’ and ‘Life’ in the Creation Story’’, 
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 3, 1955, 103-19; R. Gordis, ‘““The Knowledge of Good and 
Evil in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls’, JBL 76, 1957, 123-38; W. Grundmann, 
agathos etc., TDNT I 10-18; W. Grundmann and G. Bertram, kalos, TDNT II 536-56; R. Koch, 
“Good and evil”, EBT I 317-21; L. J. Kuyper, “To Know Good and Evil”, Interpretation 1, 1947, 
490 ff.; H. D. A. Major, ‘“The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil’”’, ExpT 20, 1908-9, 427 ff. ; 
A. Millard, ‘‘For He is Good’’, TB 17, 1966, 115 ff.; C. L. Mitton, ““Motives for Goodness in the 
New Testament’, ExpT 63, 1951-52, 73 ff.; C. J. Orlebeke and L. B. Smedes, God and the Good, 
1975; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 154-60; B. Reicke, ““The Knowledge Hidden 
in the Tree of Paradise’, JSS 1, 1956, 193-201; C. Spicq, Agape in the New Testament, I-II, 
1963-65; F. L. R. Stachowiak, ““Goodness”, EBT I 321-8; H. S. Stern, ‘““The Knowledge of Good 
and Evil’’, Vetus Testamentum 8, 1958, 407 ff.; K. Weiss, chréstos etc. TDNT IX 472-81; J. W. 



Wenham, The Goodness of God, 1974; F. Wisse, ‘““The Righteous Man and the Good Man in 
Romans v. 7°’, NTS 19, 1972-73, 91 ff. 

The following works deal with ethical aspects of the question of “‘good’’: W. W. Bartley, 

Morality and Religion, 1971; R. M. Hare, The Language of Morals, 1952; T. W. Manson, Ethics 
and the Gospel, 1960; I. T. Ramsey, ed., Christian Ethics in Contemporary Philosophy, 1973, re- 
print; S. S. Smalley, ““Good, Goodness”’, in C. F. H. Henry, ed., Baker’s Dictionary of Christian 
Ethics, 1973, 267 f.; C. L. Stevenson, Ethics and Language, 1944; J. O. Urmson, The Emotive 
Theory of Ethics, 1968; G. H. von Wright, The Varieties of Goodness, 1963. 
(b). J. Begrich, ‘“Die Paradieserzahlung”’, ZA W 50, 1932, 93 ff.; J. Chatillon, ‘““Dulcedo”’, Diction- 
naire de la Spiritualité Wl 1777-95 (Volume XXIV); J. Coppens, ‘“‘La Connaissance du Bien et du 
Mal et le Péché du Paradis’’, Analecta Lovaniensia Biblica et Orientalia, 1948; J. de Fraine, “‘Jeux 
de mots dans le récit de la chute’’, Mélanges Bibliques A. Robert, 1957, 47-59; P. Humbert, 
Etudes sur le Recit du Paradis et de la Chute dans la Genése, 1940, 82-116; H. Junker, Die biblische 
Urgeschichte, 1932; A. I. Mennessier, ‘‘Douceur’’, Dictionnaire de la Spiritualité WI 1674-85 
(Volume XXIV); H. Renckens, Urgeschichte und Heilsgeschichte: Israels Schau in die Vergangen- 
heit nach Gen. I-3, 19612; H. Schmidt, Die Erzahlung von Paradies und Stindenfall, 1931; S. H. 
Siedl, Qumran — eine Monchsgemeinde im Alten Bund, 1963, 195-209; C. Spica, ‘‘Bénignité, 
mansuétude, douceur, clémence”’, RB 54, 1947, 321-9; F. L. R. Stachowiak, chréstotés, thre 
biblisch-theologische Entwicklung und Eigenart, 1957; A. Vogtle, Die Tugend — und Laster-Kataloge 
im Neuen Testament, NTAbh 16, 4/5, 1936; S. Wibbing, Die Tugend- und Lasterketaloge im Neuen 
Testament und ihre Traditionsgeschichte unter besonderer Berticksichtigung der Qumran-Texte, 
BZNW 25, 1959; K. Winkler, ‘“Clementia’’, RAC III 106-31; J. Ziegler, Dulcedo Dei, Alttesta- 
mentliche Abhandlungen 13/2, 1937. 

Gospel, Evangelize, Evangelist 
Sion | edayyédiov (euangelion), good news, gospel; ebayyedila 
(euangelizo), bring or announce good news, proclaim, 
preach; mid. evayyedifouai (euangelizomai), bring good news, proclaim glad 
tidings, proclaim, preach; ebayyediatyc (euangelistés), proclaimer of glad tidings 
or of the gospel, evangelist. 

cL 1. The mid. vb. euangelizomai (Aristophanes), euangelizoé, a form not encoun- 

tered until later Gk., together with the adjectival noun evangelion (Homer) and 
the noun euangelos (Aesch.), are all derived from angelos, messenger (probably an 
Iranian loan-word originally), or the vb. ange//o (announce; — Angel). euangelos, 
messenger, is one who brings a message of victory or other political or personal 
news that causes joy. In the Hel. period the word can also mean one who announces 
oracles. Similarly the vb. euangelizomai means to speak as a messenger of gladness, 
to proclaim good news; and where it is used in a religious sense, to promise. 
euangelizomai also gains a religious meaning when it is used in connection with the 
appearance of a “divine man’’, whose approach is announced with joy (e.g. of 
Apollonius of Tyana in Philostratus, VA 1, 28, 3rd cent. A.D.). On the other hand, 
the vb. is often found with its original sense weakened to make it synonymous with 
angello, to bear a message, announce. 

2. The noun euangelion means: (a) the reward received by the messenger of 
victory (his good news brings relief to the recipients; therefore he is rewarded); 
(b) the message itself, chiefly a technical term for the message of victory, but also 
used of political and private messages bringing joy. Such messages are seen as a gift 
of the gods. When the message has been received, sacrifices are offered to them 



out of gratitude but also in order to hold the gods to their gift (cf. the phrase 
euangelia thyein, to celebrate good news by sacrifice, first found in Isocrates). 
“Behind such sacrifices lies the animist’s distrust of his own religious cult: hurry 
to thank the gods for the message, or else you may miss the good fortune of which 
it tells” (J. Schniewind, Euangelion, 1931, 182). 

(c) It is chiefly in connection with oracles (i.e. the promise of some future event) 
and in the imperial cult that evangelion acquires a religious meaning. In the latter 
sphere news of the divine ruler’s birth, coming of age, or enthronement, and also 
his speeches, decrees and acts are glad tidings which bring long hoped-for fulfil- 
ment to the longings of the world for happiness and peace. An instance of this is the 
decree of the Greeks of the province of Asia c. 9 B.c. marking the birthday of 
Augustus (23 September) the beginning of the civil year: “It is a day which we may 
justly count as equivalent to the beginning of everything —if not in itself and in 
its own nature, at any rate in the benefits it brings — inasmuch as it has restored the 
shape of everything that was failing and turning into misfortune, and has given a 
new look to the Universe at a time when it would gladly have welcomed destruction 
if Caesar had not been born to be the common blessing of all men. ... Whereas the 
Providence (pronoia) which has ordered the whole of our life, showing concern and 
zeal, has ordained the most perfect consummation for human life by giving to it 
Augustus, by filling him with virtue for doing the work of a benefactor among men, 
and by sending in him, as it were, a saviour for us and those who come after us, to 
make war to cease, to create order everywhere ... and whereas the birthday of the 
God [Augustus] was the beginning for the world of the glad tidings [in the Greek 
the ‘Evangel’] that have come to men through him ... Paulus Fabius Maximus, 
the proconsul of the province. . . has devised a way of honouring Augustus hitherto 
unknown to the Greeks, which is, that the reckoning of time for the course of 
human life should begin with Ais birth’ (quoted from E. Barker, From Alexander 
to Constantine: Passages and Documents Illustrating the History of Social and 
Political Ideas 336 B.C.—A.D. 337, (1956) 1959, 211 f.; cf. W. Dittenberger, Orientis 
Graeci Inscriptiones, II, No. 458; for other data on background see G. Friedrich, 
TDNT II 721-5). The proclamation of this euangelion does not merely herald a 
new era: it actually brings it about. The proclamation is itself the euangelion, since 
the salvation it proclaims is already present in it. 

3. It is not difficult to trace the connection between this religious use of the word 
euangelion in the Hel. world, especially in the imperial cult, and its use in the NT. 
The latter takes up a term widely used in the Hel. world and loaded with religious 
concepts, when it speaks of its own euangelion or gospel. At the same time the OT 
roots of the NT concept of evangelion must not be ignored. 

oT |. In the Gk. translation of the OT euangelion never appears in the sing. form. 

The plur., used to render the Heb. b°sorah, means reward for good news (2 Sam. 
4:10). Occasionally euangelia, a form unknown in the NT, also appears for the 
Heb. b°sorah in the sense of glad tidings (e.g. 2 Sam. 18:20, 22). On the whole, 
however, the substantival forms are not of particular importance. Of greater 
significance for the further development of the concept is the fact that the vb. 
euangelizomai — which is likewise not found frequently elsewhere and is limited to a 
few writings — comes to stand for the Heb. bissar, to announce, tell, publish (e.g. 



1 Ki. 1:42; Jer. 20:15). This verb is the term used in the Pss. 40:9[10]; 68:11[12]; 
96:2 ff. and Isa. 41:27 and 52:7 to herald Yahweh’s universal victory over the 
world and his kingly rule. With his enthronement (cf. the enthronement psalms, 
especially Ps. 96) and with his return to Zion (in Isa.) a new era begins. The mess- 
enger of good tidings (m*bassér, substantival part., translated by euangelizomenos 
in the LXX) announces this new era of world history and inaugurates it by his 
mighty word. Peace and salvation have now come; Yahweh has become king 
(Isa. 52:7; cf. also 40:9); his reign extends over the whole world (Ps. 96:2 ff.). 
This “‘‘gospel’ is effective speech, a powerful saying, a word which brings its own 
fulfilment. In the mouth of his messengers God himself speaks: he speaks and it is 
accomplished; he commands and it is done (Ps. 33:6)” (G. Gloege in Theologie 
fiir Nichttheologen, I, 1963, 100). The act of proclamation is itself the dawn of the 
new era. Hence it is easy to understand the special significance that attaches to the 
messenger of the good news. With his arrival on the scene and the delivery of his 
message, salvation, redemption and peace become a reality. (Cf. on this Isa. 61:1, 
where the connection between message and mission is particularly prominent; > 

2. When the LXX was translated, this concept of the messenger of glad tidings 
and his powerful, effective word was no longer understood, and the meaning was 
weakened. The proclamation of the message was separated from the action origin- 
ally associated directly with it (cf. e.g. Isa. 52:7, where LXX translates: ““Your 
God will be king’’). Neither Philo nor Josephus takes up the concept of the messen- 
ger of glad tidings as found in Isa. in their use of euangelion and euangelizomai. 
They use the words in the normal Hel. sense (cf. War, 2, 420; 4, 656; cf. TDNT II 
725 f.). They do not therefore contribute anything further to our understanding of 
the NT use of these terms. The same cannot however be said of Rab. Judaism. 

3. Rab. Judaism kept alive the concept of the messenger of good tidings. He was 
variously expected: as an unknown figure, the forerunner of the Messiah, or as 
the Messiah himself (—~ Jesus Christ). The content of his message was already 
familiar from Isa., and was therefore no longer of primary interest. The important 
thing about him was rather that the m*®bassér is coming, and by his proclamation 
he will usher in the era of salvation. Everything depends on his appearance and on 
his act of proclamation (cf. Pes. R. 36 [162a] SB III 9ff.; cf. also 1QM 18:14, where 
the messenger’s self-designation as ““‘messenger of good news”’ is a clear echo of 
Isa. 61). Here the same observation may be made that was made concerning OT 
usage. The eschatological event finds expression in the vb. (dissar means to preach 
the eschatological message of joy) and in particular the participial noun (m*°basser, 
the eschatological messenger of joy), but not in the noun. b*sérah, good news. This 
fact suggests that the NT term euangelion is derived from Gk. usage rather than the 
Heb., or more precisely from the language of the imperial cult. The question cannot 
be decided with certainty, especially since ““The imperial cult and the Bible share the 
view that accession to the throne, which introduces a new era and brings peace to 
the world, is a gospel for men” (7 DNT II 725). The only difference, in fact, is in the 
content of the euangelion. 

NT |. Although the vb. euangelizomai and the noun euangelion are such important 
NT terms, the two words are found with varying degrees of frequency in the 



various writings of the NT. euwangelizomai is found only once in Matt. (11:5). In 
Lk.-Acts, on the other hand, it occurs 25 times, in Paul 21 times (including twice 
in Eph.), twice in Heb., and 3 times in 1 Pet. In addition euangelizoé is found twice 
in Rev. Although the vb. is not found in Mk., the noun occurs there 7 times, and 4 
times in Matt. Luke, however, shows a distinctive predilection for the verbal form 
euangelizomai; he uses the noun only twice (Acts 15:7 and 20:24). The noun 
euangelion occurs particularly often in Paul (60 times, including 4 times in Eph., 
and 4 times in the Pastoral Epistles), and once each in 1 Pet. and Rev. The fact that 
the Johannine writings (gospel and epistles) know neither the vb. nor the noun is 
most remarkable. It may perhaps be explained by the characteristic theology under- 
lying them, their so-called present eschatology. It would be a mistake, however, to 
assume that because certain NT writings do not use the vb. or the noun, the thought 
expressed by them is therefore completely lacking. In the Johannine writings, for 
instance, the concept is expressed by terms like martyred, to witness, and martyria, 
—> witness. 

2. It has been questioned whether Jesus himself used the term euangelion (or, 
to be more precise, its Heb. or Aram. equivalent) as a broad description of his 
message. Nevertheless, the term is attributed to him in Mk. 1:15; 8:35; 10:29; 
13:10; 14:9; [16:15]; Matt. 4:23; 9:35; 24:14; 26:13; cf. also Mk. 1:1, 14). It is 
possible that Jesus indicated that the words of messianic expectation in Isa. 35 
and 61 are fulfilled in his words and actions (cf. Matt. 11:5 f. = Lk. 7:22, Q: 
ptochoi euangelizontai, the glad tidings go out to the poor; also Lk. 4:18, where 
Jesus refers to Isa. 61:1). But if so, they are fulfilled in a way which will disappoint 
(Matt. 11:6) the expectations popularly attached to the messenger of glad tidings 
in Isa. (i.e. political liberation and the destruction of Israel’s enemies). Certainly 
the answer to the Baptist’s question in Matt. 11:5f. means that the glad tidings 
awaited since Isa. are now being proclaimed and are already effective. 

The really decisive question is not whether Jesus himself used the word euangelion 
but whether it is a word appropriate to the substance of his message. There is no 
doubt that Jesus saw his message of the coming — kingdom of God (Mk. 1:14) 
which is already present in his word and action as good news. “Blessed are your 
eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear’’ (Matt. 13:16). This message of 
joy is no longer to be separated from the messenger who brings it, and this messen- 
ger is Jesus himself (cf. Lk. 11:20; Matt. 5:1 f.; cf. TDNT IL 728 f.). Moreover, he 
appears not only as the messenger and author of the message, but at the same time 
as its subject, the one of whom the message tells. It is therefore quite consistent for 
the early Christian church to take up the term evangelion to describe the message of 
salvation connected with the coming of Jesus. 

3. There is good reason to believe that it was Paul who established the term 
euangelion in the vocabulary of the NT. That is not to say that he was the first to 
use this word without further qualification for the total content of the message, 
and to make it synonymous with the name of — Jesus Christ. On the contrary, 
Paul’s frequent use of the word euangelion absolutely (at least 23 times without 
further qualification to describe the content of the message) suggests that he was 
taking over phraseology already familiar to his readers. The latter knew what the 
content of the gospel was. It is thus reasonable to suppose that in the early churches 
this terminology had developed by analogy out of that associated with the ‘“‘gospel”’ 



of the imperial cult, though also in conscious opposition to the latter. In the sphere 
of missionary outreach in particular, the message of salvation through Jesus Christ 
came into conflict with the political, messianic message by reason of its universal 
claims. It was inevitable that very soon OT statements and ideas, especially from 
the prophecy of Isa., would become linked with this Hel. terminology, ‘This 
could readily happen, not least because the connection between the Hellenistic- 
Oriental concepts of the redeemer and the ideology of the saviour-king that stands 
behind deutero-Isaiah was suggested by the subject matter itself’? (W. Schnee- 
melcher in Henn. Schn., I, 72). 

In Paul euangelion has become a central concept of his theology. It means the 
familiar good news: that God has acted for the salvation (— redemption) of the 
world in the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus (cf. the development of 
these ideas in confessional formulae in Rom. 1:1 ff.; 1 Cor. 15:1 ff.). In so far as 
this event is already promised in the OT, the OT belongs to the gospel. (epangelia, 
— promise, is closely related both linguistically and conceptually to euangelion, 
and it is significant that the conflict of law and gospel appears in Paul’s writings in 
connection with this term.) However, euangelion, as used by Paul, does not mean 
only the content of what is preached, but also the act, process and execution of the 
proclamation. Content and process of preaching are one. They are not separated 
in thought (Rom. 1:1), apart from when they are set close alongside each other 
(1 Cor. 9:14, 18). For in the very act of proclamation its content becomes reality, 
and brings about the salvation which it contains. “The gospel does not merely 
bear witness to salvation history; it is itself salvation history” (G. Friedrich, 
TDNT II 731). The action of — proclamation is denoted not only by the vb. 
euangelizomai (as e.g. in 1 Cor. 1:17), but also by euangelion used as a noun of 
action. Thus in 2 Cor. 8:18 euangelion means preaching of the gospel. Similarly 
the gen. in the phrases “‘gospel of God’’, or “‘gospel of Christ”, and “‘of the Son 
of God” (e.g. Rom. 1:1; 15:16; 1 Cor. 9:12; 2 Cor. 2:12) should be taken as both 
objective and subjective: Christ or God is both the content and author of the gospel. 
It is difficult to make a clear distinction here, since Paul sometimes stresses the one 
aspect and sometimes the other. Wherever it is proclaimed (euangelizesthai in 2 
Cor. 11:7; Gal. 1:11; kéryssein in Gal. 2:2; 1 Thess. 2:9; katangellein in 1 Cor. 
9:14; lalein in 1 Thess. 2:2), this gospel is charged with power. It creates — faith 
(Rom. 1:16 f.; Phil. 1:27), brings salvation, life (Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:2) and also 
—> judgment (Rom. 2:16). It reveals God’s — righteousness (Rom. 1:17), brings 
the fulfilment of — hope (Col. 1:5, 23), intervenes in the lives of men, and creates 
churches. Since this gospel is no invention of man (Gal. 1:11), but rather God or 
Christ himself speaking through his messengers, the — apostles, the gospel is 
closely associated with the apostolate (2 Cor. 10-13). (See also Gal. 2:7 f., where 
euangelion in the sense of the proclamation of the message is clearly set out as the 
purpose and content of the apostolé or apostolic mission of both Paul and Peter, 
to the Gentiles as well as to the Jews.) Just as in Isa. 40:9; 52:7; and Nah. 1:15 
the heralds and watchmen on the walls proclaim the coming of God, so the mes- 
sengers proclaim the gospel (Rom. 10:15). Paul was conscious of having been 
called to bring the gospel to the Gentiles especially (Rom. 1:1; Gal. 1:16), and so 
to carry the eschatological event beyond the borders of Israel (Rom. 15:9). His 
whole activity was euangelizesthai (1 Cor. 1:17). As the “‘partner of the gospel’’ 



(1 Cor. 9:23), therefore, he could speak of “‘his gospel’’ (e.g. Rom. 16:25; 2 Cor. 
4:3). By this he meant the one gospel which was preached in Jerusalem (Gal. 1 : 6-9; 
2 Cor. 10:13-16) and which has only now broken out of the bounds of the Jewish 
law, and become the gospel for the Gentiles, freed from the law (Gal. 1:16; 2:7, 8; 
Rom. 1:15). Paul’s opponents, on the other hand, have “‘another gospel’ (Gal. 
1:6-10; 2 Cor. 11:4). They make attacks upon Paul. But since apostleship and the 
preaching of the gospel belong together, every attack on Paul and his apostleship 
is an attack on the gospel, and vice versa. To preach the gospel is not to commend 
oneself, but — as if compelled (1 Cor. 9:16) — to commend the Lord (2 Cor. 10:18; 
4:5; Gal. 1:10). 

4. In the Synoptic Gospels likewise, euangelion is the name given to the good 
news of the saving event in Jesus Christ, as preached in the church. The separate 
evangelists do, however, have different emphases when it comes to detail. These are 
conditioned by their respective theological outlooks: 

(a) Mark stands very close to the Pauline use of euangelion, always using it 
absolutely except at 1:1 and 1:14. Since it is evident that he uses it in redactional 
passages, scholars have assumed that he was the one who introduced this word 
(taking it over perhaps from Paul) into the synoptic tradition. Matt. and Lk. are 
dependent on him, but modify his ideas. Mk., like Paul, sees Jesus Christ as both 
content and author of the gospel. Where it is proclaimed, he is present and at 
work — present to such a degree that what is done for the gospel’s sake is done for 
Jesus’ sake as well (Mk. 8:35; 10:29). The content of this gospel is the history of 
Jesus with its individual events (cf. Mk. 14:5). Mk. does not record them merely 
out of historical interest, but rather uses the narrative about Jesus in order to 
express what the gospel is. It is not information about a glorious divine redeemer, 
but the message of salvation through the suffering Son of man whose hidden glory 
as — Son of God did not become apparent except to his followers (— disciple) on 
the way of the cross. Mk. therefore sets evangelion as a kind of title over his whole 
book (1:1, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God’’); this 
means that these stories are not merely reports about Jesus, but an address. They are 
the good news in which Jesus is proclaimed as the living Lord and in which he 
himself addresses the readers of the Gospel of Mark, bringing about and strengthen- 
ing faith (Mk. 1:15). 

(b) In contrast with this use of euangelion in Mk., Matt. never uses the word 
without further qualifying it as “the gospel of the kingdom” (4:23; 9:35) or “‘this 
gospel” (26:13; cf. also 24:14). In so doing he has shifted the emphasis. In the 
foreground now is the idea of Jesus as the bringer and proclaimer of the gospel. 
The content of the gospel is now to be seen chiefly in the — teaching in which 
Jesus instructs his disciples (4:23; 9:35; 24:14; but in 26:13 “‘gospel’’ refers to the 
passion narrative). But in so far as the church passes on this gospel, Jesus himself 
is also its content (cf. especially Matt. 24:14; 26:13). 

(c) In Luke-Acts the term euangelion is found only at Acts 15:7 and 20:24. 
Possibly this has to do with his particular scheme, according to which the era of 
Jesus must be distinguished from the era of the church, and so too the preaching of 
Jesus from that of the apostles. Thus he can describe as evangelion the apostolic 
preaching (Acts 15:7; 20:24), but not the preaching of Jesus. Particularly instruc- 
tive in this context is the alteration of euangelion in Mk. 10:29 to basileia in Lk. 



18:29. This suggestion is not upset by the fact that Lk. evidently has a special 
predilection for the vb. euangelizesthai. It no longer has the pregnant meaning 
which it has for Paul, who uses it to embrace the whole work of Jesus, but has 
almost become a technical term for proclamation. Further evidence in this direction 
is provided by the fact that it is used interchangeably with other verbs of — pro- 
clamation like kéryssein (cf. here the Markan version behind Lk. 4:43; 9:6; and 
also Lk. 4:18), katangellein (Acts 13:5, 38; 15:36; 16:17; 17:23; 26:23), didaskein 
(Lk. 20:1, — teach). Moreover, Lk. generally qualifies this oral proclamation by a 
phrase like “kingdom of God”’ (4:43; 8:1) or “Jesus” (Acts 5:42; 8:25; 11:20). 
Thus Lk. can also describe the Baptist’s activity as euangelizesthai (3:18), although 
he explicitly stresses that the kingdom of God was not proclaimed until after the 
Baptist (16:16). euangelizesthai thus practically regains here its broader, more 
general Hel. meaning of proclaiming good news, and is no longer a term with 
christological overtones. | 

5. The other NT writings which use evangelion or euangelizomai on the whole 
follow the above outline of Paul. They tend to bring out certain aspects of this 
powerful gospel which is not a human word but the word of God (1 Pet. 1:12). It 
was entrusted to Paul as a preacher, apostle and teacher (2 Tim. 1:11). Its message 
of Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, and descended from David (2 Tim. 2:8) is not 
limited to a single, past event, but is experienced as a word charged with power in 
the present so that it cannot be fettered by human chains (2 Tim. 2:9). This gospel 
produces rebirth and new life (1 Pet. 23-25). It brings peace (Eph. 2:17; 6:15), and 
draws together the near and the far off, the Gentiles and the Jews (Eph. 3:1-9). It gives 
salvation (Eph. 1:13), and has “‘brought life and immortality to light” (2 Tim. 1:10). 

6. However varied may be the emphasis and development of the term euangelion 
in the NT, the reference is always to the oral proclamation of the message of 
salvation and never to something fixed in writing, such as a > book or a letter. This 
is shown not least by the synonyms of euangelion and euangelizomai: kéryssein, 
katangellein, lalein, logos, etc. This oral message is one, even if Paul speaks of 
“his” gospel (euangelion mou, Rom. 2:16). The NT knows only the gospel; the plur. 
‘the gospels’ is a contradiction of its nature (G. Bornkamm, RGG? II 749), 

Nevertheless, from the 2nd cent. onwards reference is made to gospels, meaning 
the written gospels (cf. Iren., Haer. 3, 11, 8; cf. 3, 1, 1; Clem. Alex., Strom, 1, 136, 
1; cf. Lampe, 555 ff.). This is the outcome of a development which can be traced in 
its origin back to Mk. Mk. associated the gospel with the stories about Jesus which 
he had written down, but he did not identify the two. The introductory phrase 
“The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (1:1) clearly does not mean that in 
what follows he is writing a biography of Jesus (see above 4 (a)). This identification 
did, however, take place at a later stage as a result of an historicizing tendency 
which may already be seen in Matt. and Lk. Hence, “‘gospel’’ came to be used as a 
description of a book, and consequently the plural form ta euangelia became poss- 
ible as a collective term for these “‘reports”’. This was not yet true in the case of 
Lk. For in his prologue (1:1-4) he did not employ the term “‘gospels’’ for the 
narratives about Jesus which were evidently in bountiful supply in his day. Instead 
he used diégésis, narrative. In the course of the 2nd cent., however, this use of the 
term for a type of literature without parallel in the NT world became established. 
At the same time the NT insight was retained. For the four gospels “testify to the 



one gospel, to the proclamation of salvation in Jesus Christ’? (W. Schneemelcher, 
Henn. Schn., IJ, 75). Similarly Luther declared: ““The gospel . . . is not in truth that 
which is written in books and set down in letters, but rather a spoken message and 
living word, and a voice which sounds out into the world and is publicly pro- 
claimed, that it may be heard everywhere” (Weimarer Ausgabe XII, 259). 

7. euangelistés is a term for one who proclaims the euangelion. This word, which 
is very rare in non-Christian literature, but common enough in early Christian 
writings, is found in the NT only at Acts 21:8 (of Philip who had been one of the 
Seven, Acts 6:5; cf. also 8:5 ff.), Eph. 4:11 (along with apostles, prophets, pastors 
and teachers), and in 2 Tim. 4:5 (of Timothy). In these three passages the evangelist 
is distinguished from the apostle. This is especially obvious in the case of the evan- 
gelist Philip, whose activity has to be ratified by the apostles Peter and John (Acts 
8:14 f.). The term euangelistés is thus clearly intended to refer to people who carry 
on the work of the apostles who have been directly called by the risen Christ. But 
it is difficult to decide whether the reference is to an office, or simply to an activity. 
These evangelists may have been engaged in missionary work (Acts 21:8), or church 
leadership (2 Tim. 4:5). As a term for the author of a gospel, euangelistés is not 
found before the time when euangelion is used to describe a book and “gospels” 
are spoken of (cf. Lampe, 559). U. Becker 
—> Confess, > Law, — Proclaim, — Scripture, ~ Teach, — Word 

(a). R. S. Barbour, Traditio-Historical Criticism of the Gospels: Some Comments on Current 
Methods, 1972; K. Barth, God, Grace and Gospel, 1959; J. W. Bowman, “The term Gospel and its 
Cognates in the Palestinian Syriac’’, in A. J. B. Higgins, ed.. New Testament Essays: Studies in 
Memory of Thomas Walter Manson, 1959, 54-67; F. F. Bruce, ‘‘Galatian Problems 3: The ‘Other’ 
Gospel”, BJRL 53, 1971, 253-71; Jesus and Christian Origins outside the New Testament,1974; and 
“The Speeches in Acts -— Thirty Years After’’, in R. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope, 1974, 
53-68; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 87 ff.; The History of the Synoptic 
Tradition, 19687; M. Burrows, “The Origin of the Term Gospel’, JBL 44, 1925, 21-33; H. 
Conzelmann, The Theology of St. Luke, 1960; M. Dibelius, From Tradition to Gospel, reprinted 
1971; C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Preaching and its Developments, 1936; and Gospel and Law, 1951; 
C. F. Evans, ““The Kerygma’’, JTS 7, 1956, 25-41; G. Friedrich, euangelizomai, euangelion, TDNT 
II 707-37; K. Grayston, “‘“Not Ashamed of the Gospel’’’, StudEv 11 1964, 569-73; F. W. 
Grosheide, ‘“The Pauline Epistles as Kerygma’’, in Studia Paulina in Honorem J. de Zwaan, 1953, 
139-43; R. H. Gundry, “Recent Investigations into the Literary Genre ‘Gospel’ ’’, in R. N. 
Longenecker and M. C. Tenney, eds., New Dimensions in New Testament Study, 1974, 97-114; 
D. Guthrie, New Testament Introduction, I, 1965, The Gospels and Acts; W. H. P. Hatch, 
“The Primitive Christian Message’, JBL 58, 1939, 1-39; S. Johnson, The Theology of the Gospels, 
1966; W. G. Kimmel, Introduction to the New Testament, 19757; X. Léon-Dufour, The Gospels and 
the Jesus of History 1968; W. Marxsen, Mark the Evangelist, 1969; C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of 
the New Testament, 1962; and ““The Intention of the Evangelists’’, in A. J. B. Higgins, ed., op. cit., 
165-79; H. Palmer, The Logic of Gospel Criticism, 1968; J. Rohde, Rediscovering the Teaching of 
the Evangelists, 1968; B. Reicke, ‘“‘A Synopsis of Early Christian Preaching’’, in A. Fridrichsen, 
ed., The Root of the Vine, 1953, 128-60; J. Schmid, ‘“‘Gospel’”’, EBT I 328-32; W. Schneemelcher, 
“Gospels: Non-Biblical Material about Jesus”, in Henn.-Schn., I, 69-84; R. H. Strachan, “‘The 
Gospel in the New Testament”’, JB VII 3-31; B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 1924; V. Taylor, 
The Formation of the Gospel Tradition, 1933; H. G. Wood, ‘“‘Didache, Kerygma and Evangelion’’, 
in A. J. B. Higgins, op. cit., 306-14. 

(b). M. Albertz, Die Botschaft des Neuen Testaments, 1/1, 1947; R. Asting, Die Verktindigung des 
Wortes im Urchristentum, 1939; P. Blaser, ‘‘Evangelium’’, Handbuch theologischer Grundbegriffe, 
I, 1962, 355 ff.; G. Gloege, “‘Evangelium’’, Theologie fiir Nichttheologen, I, 1963, 97 ff.; E. Haen- 
chen, Der Weg Jesu. Eine Erklarung des Markus-Evangeliums und der kanonischen Parallelen, 1966; 
A. Harnack, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Kirchenverfaysung in den zwei ersten Jahrhunderten, 



1910, 234 ff.; P. Hoffmann, ed., Orientierung an Jesus. Zur Theologie der Synoptiker. Fiir Josef 
Schmid, 1973 (see especially the article by R. Schnackenburg.); O. Michel, ‘“Evangelium’’, RAC VI, 
1965, 1107 ff.; E. Molland, Das paulinische Evangelium. Das Wort und die Sache, 1934; H. Ristow 
and K. Matthiae, Der historische Jesus und der Kerygmatische Christus, 19612; W. Schmauch, 
“Evangelium”, EKL I 1213 ff.; K. L. Schmidt, “‘Die Stellung der Evangelien in der allgemeinen 
Literaturgeschichte’’, Eucharisterion, 11 (dedicated to H. Gunkel), 1925, 50-134; J. Schniewind, 
Euangelion. Ursprung und erste Gestalt des Begriffs Evangelium, (1927-31) 1937-41; E. Schweizer, 
“Die theologische Leistung des Markus”, EvTh 24, 1964, 337 ff.; G. Strecker, Der Weg der 
Gerechtigkeit. Untersuchung zur Theologie des Matthdus, 19662; and ‘“‘Literarische Uberlegungen 
zum euangelion-Begriff im Markusevangelium’’, in H. Baltensweiler and B. Reicke, eds., Neues 
Testament und Geschichte. O. Cullmann zum 70. Geburtstag, 1972, 91-104. 

Grace, Spiritual Gifts 

yapic (charis), grace, gracefulness, graciousness, favour, 

thanks, gratitude; ydpioua (charisma), gift given out of 
goodwill; yapiCopuati (charizomai), show favour or kindness, give as a favour, to be 
gracious to someone, to pardon; yapitow (charitod), endue with grace. 

cL 1. Words formed from the Gk. root char indicate things which produce well- 

being. They belong to the Indo-European family of words which includes Old 
High German ger (greed); New High German Geier (vulture; cf. Eng. gerfalcon); 
Lat. caritas; Eng. greedy; cf. chara (— Joy). charis (from Homer on) which is not 
always clearly distinguished in literature from chara (from Sappho on) means that 
which brings wellbeing among men (cf. charma), while chara ( — Joy) is the indivi- 
dual experience or expression of this wellbeing. From this basic meaning of the 
noun the individual meanings of charis are derived: grace, favour, beauty, thank- 
fulness, gratitude, delight, kindness; expression of favour, good turn, benefit; in the 
plur. debt of gratitude, gratitude, recompense, thanks (these meanings from 
Euripides on). The acc. sing. with echein means to be grateful; with the addition 
of pros tina it means to have someone’s goodwill. Linked with apodounai, or ophelein, 
the acc. sing. means to return thanks or to owe thanks. Indicative of the character- 
istic use of the noun are: (a) the combinations (without the article) with eis, for 
Someone’s good, as a favour; en, for the benefit of; pros, to oblige someone, in 
kindness, as desired; syn, to the satisfaction of; (b) the adverbial use charin tinos to 
someone’s advantage, for someone’s sake, on account of. 

charis designates not only the attitude of the gods but also that of men (e.g. the 
emperor’s dispensations). Like charma (cf. Lat. carmen, spell, whence charm, French 
charme), charis can also designate the physical causes of the benevolent gift, charm, 
attraction, and in the plur. it can mean amiable characteristics. In mythology per- 
sonifications of charis occur: Charis is the exceedingly beautiful wife of Hephaestus; 
hai Charités, the Graces, are the creators and bestowers of charm. 

2. The derived noun charisma, gracious gift, donation (only from God to men) 
is found in pre-Christian literature only in one LXX version of Sir. 7:33; 38:30; 
Ps. 30:20 (Theod.); Philo. Leg. All. 3, 78; Sib. 2, 54. In post-Christian secular 
literature it occurs in Alciphron 3, 17, 4 (2nd cent. A. D.) meaning a benevolently 
dispensed gift (cf. Arndt, 887). 



3. The vb. charizomai (common from Homer onwards) does not occur with 
God as its subject until Aelius Aristides (2nd cent. A.D.), when it means to give 
graciously. When applied to men’s dealing with one another, it means to do 
something pleasant for someone, to be kind, gracious, or obliging, to oblige or 
gratify someone (from Diodorus Siculus, Ist cent. B.c.). With the construction 
tini pros ti, it is used in the sense of courting a god’s favour by sacrifice; and in the 
case of a woman, to grant favours, to indulge her passions. charisamenos used 
absolutely means as a favour. In the context of ethics and law it means to grant, 
remit, forgive, or pardon, with the dat. of the person and the acc. of the thing (since 
Dionysius of Halicarnassos, Ist cent. B.c.). It is used particularly in the sense of 
granting someone’s life (to a third party), i.e. to set him free to please someone 
(cf. NT below on Acts 3:14; 25:11, 16; 27:24; Phlm. 22). In the perf. and plupf. 
pass. the vb. means to be pleasant, agreeable, or desired. The perf. part. has the 
sense of a noun, pleasantness, agreeableness (cf. the formula hos kecharismenoi, as 
those who have received a gift). 

4. The vb. charito6é occurs only in a few LXX and extra-canonical passages (Sir. 
18:17; Ps. 17:26 [Sym.]; Aristeas 225 and Test. Jos. 1:6), always with reference 
to divine blessing. Otherwise it is confined to the NT and late post-Christian secular 
literature (Libanius, 4th cent.). 

oT 1. The LXX uses the word charis about 190 times of which only about 75 have a 

Heb. equivalent. Among the equivalents the noun hén (61 times) is the most 
frequent, mostly in the sense favour, inclination. It rarely means attractiveness, 
beauty, charm (e.g. Ps. 45:2 [MT 45:3; LXX 44:3]). Occasionally it is used as an 
adj. (Prov. 1:9; 4:9; 5:19). Other equivalents are rdsén, what is acceptable (between 
men, Prov. 10:32), favour which one seeks from God (Prov. 11:27), favour which 
one obtains from God (Prov. 12:2); hesed (twice), favour (Est. 2:9, 17, here 
parallel to hén); raham (twice, plur.;—> Mercy, arts. oiktirmos and splanchna), 
brotherly feeling (Dan. 1:9), compassion (Gen. 43:14) once each; t6b, a good 
thing (Prov. 18:22); g*diulah, sign of honour (Est. 6:3); as a conjunction or pre- 
position bammeh, why (2 Chr. 7:21); biglal, on account of (variant of 1 Ki. 14:16); 
halag (Ezek. 12:24), accommodating with smooth flattery (W. Zimmerli, Ezechiel, 
BKAT ad loc.). 

2. (a) The use of the word hén clarifies the meaning of “grace” in history and 
actions. It denotes the stronger coming to the help of the weaker who stands in 
need of help by reason of his circumstances or natural weakness. He acts by a 
voluntary decision, though he is moved by the dependence or the request of the 
weaker party. A typical expression used to describe such an event from the stand- 
point of the weak is the formula to find favour in someone’s eyes, i.e. to acquire his 
favour, liking, benevolence, condescension, and understanding. The action itself 
is what makes the weaker party acceptable: e.g. Jacob to Esau (Gen. 32:5, MT 
32:6); Joseph to Potiphar and Pharaoh’s men (Gen. 3:4 and 50:4); the Egyptians 
to Joseph (Gen. 47:25); Ruth to Boaz (Ruth 2:2, 10, 13); a young wife to her 
husband (here in the negative, Deut. 24:1); Hannah to Eli (1 Sam. 1:18); David to 
Saul and Jonathan (1 Sam. 16:22; 20:3); Joab to David (2 Sam. 14:22); Esther 
to the king (Est. 8:5 etc.). This acceptance is desired (Zech. 4:7) or experienced 
(Eccl. 9:11) as fortune or salvation. Often it can only be understood as the result 



of the special intervention of God who supplies grace to the weak (Gen. 39:21; 
Exod. 3:21; 11:3; 12:36). 

(b) hén denotes relatively seldom the activity of God. It is used mostly in. the 
sense of his undeserved gift in election. Noah (Gen. 6:8) is singled out of mankind 
sentenced to destruction (cf. below on Gen. 8:21 f.). The choice of this one indivi- 
dual allows us to recognize mercy in the midst of judgment. Moses, the chosen 
mediator, was permitted to remind Yahweh of his electing gift (Exod. 33:12, 13a) 
and therefore request a renewed gift of Yahweh (Exod. 33:13b, 16; cf. Num. 11:1), 
recognizable as Yahweh’s care in history for the — covenant people and renewed 
on account of the mediator’s intercession (Exod. 33:17). David also surrendered 
himself in moments of crisis to the providence of God (2 Sam. 15:25). Bowing 
before God, — humility and petition appear here not as necessary preconditions 
of the merciful gift of God, but as the way open to man. Wisdom literature recog- 
nized, in the relationship between man’s humility and divine grace, something of the 
character of a law (Prov. 3:34, taken up in | Pet. 5:5). The translation of Zech. 
12:10 1s disputed: AV “‘spirit of grace’’, RSV “‘spirit of compassion.’ The passages 
refer to the eschatological outpouring of the spirit upon men (cf. Joel 2:28 [MT 
3:1]) which is described as ‘‘a spirit of compassion and supplication” (RSV). The 
meaning lies somewhere between ‘“sympathy’’, ‘“‘commiseration’ (Koehler- 
Baumgartner, 314) and being touched (K. Elliger, Kleine Propheten, ATD 25, 
19678 ad loc.). It is followed by tah*niinim also from the root hnn (RSV “supplica- 
tion’). (See further J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1972, 190 ff.) 

(c) Even the postponement in history of punishment is a gracious act of God 
(2 Ki. 13:23, hnn). Where the concept is not found, the idea frequently is (e.g. 
1 Ki. 21:29; 2 Ki. 10:30; 14:26). Various writers on OT theology rightly point out 
that, over and above the occurrences of the concept of grace, the OT teaches 
that “‘every creature lives by the grace of God” (L. Koehler, Old Testament 
Theology, 1957, 124) and that Yahweh’s grace “‘produces everything that furthers life”’ 
(G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 229). The theological ideas of the 
Yahwist in which the increase of sin is followed by the greater increase of grace 
must be considered here: deluge followed by the Noahic covenant (esp. Gen. 
8:21 f.); the tower of — Babel followed by the Abrahamic covenant for the blessing 
of all peoples (Gen. 11-12). In Ps. 63:3 (MT 63:4) the OT is already advancing to 
the “‘discovery of the spiritual as a reality beyond the frailty of the corporeal’’ 
(von Rad, op. cit., I, 403): ““Thy steadfast love [Gk. eleos —> mercy] is better than 

3. In addition to the established OT concepts, the apocryphal Wisdom Literature 
speaks of grace as a reward for good works which include benevolence (Sir. 12:1; 
17:22; 35:2; 40:17; the pass. is used as a substitute for the divine name), renuncia- 
tion and self-denial, especially that of the martyr (Wis. 3:14 tés pisteds charis, the 
gracious reward of faith for “‘the eunuch whose hands have done no lawless deeds’’ ; 
cf. Isa. 56:3 ff.). On the grace of martyrdom, see 4 Macc. 11:12 where the tyrant 
is said to bestow great favour through enabling the martyr in his suffering to 
demonstrate his loyalty to the law. 

4. In the Qumran texts a distinctive theology of grace is found. It is linked 
particularly with the concept hesed and also with rdsén. hén is not mentioned. It is 
a theology which, within the bounds of covenant grace (1QM 12, 3 etc.; — Mercy, 



art. eleos OT), expresses in confession and prayer hope for the gift of God reserved 
for the individual (1QS 11:12 f. [through his showing favour comes my justifica- 
tion’’]; 1QH 2:23, 25; 4:37; 7:27, 35; 9:10 [“I chose judgment upon myself. . . for 
I wait for your mercy’’]; 9:14 [“hope ... through your mercy”’]; 11:31; 16:12). 
Although the Qumran and Pauline documents stand close to each other in their 
deep recognition of human sin and the consequent knowledge that God can justify 
and pardon, a fundamental difference exists. Radical liberation from the — law 
has not yet taken place (cf. H. Braun, see bibliography; H. Conzelmann, An Outline 
Theology of the New Testament, 1969, 223 ff.). The divine pleasure (rds6n) works as 
providence and foreknowledge which make possible knowledge and a change for 
the good (1QS 11:18; 10:6; 14:13 etc.). Through obedience and sacrifice this 
good pleasure can be influenced (1QS 9:4 f.; 1QM 2:5). 

5. Rab. literature contains more than a one-sided doctrine of justification by 
works. On the one hand, grace can be procured by human behaviour (cf. SB I 
767 f.; II 152). Grace may come about only where works are lacking, for rewards 
are given only for deeds (2 Esd. 8:31-33, 36; cf. SB III 201 on Rom. 4:4; 268 on 
Rom. 9:15 = Exod. 33:19; further IV 21 ff. Excursus on the Sermon on the Mount). 
On the other hand, there is the belief that grace is necessary for every action. Grace 
initiates and completes even the actions of the elect (Aristeas 195; cf. SB III 618 f.). 
The divine reward is a reward of grace (cf. SB IV 486 ff. on Matt. 20:1-16). Accord- 
ing to SB IV 490, the early synagogue did not hold fast the idea of reward by grace. 
It even denied that one could recognize election by success in the world. The success- 
ful man may be suspected of having already forfeited his future reward. 

NT The NT employs the term charis 155 times, mostly in the Pauline letters (100 

times) especially in 1 and 2 Cor. (10 and 18 times), Rom. (24 times) and Eph. 
(12 times). In the Catholic Epistles it is found most frequently in 1 Pet. (10 times); 
it occurs in Heb. (8 times). Acts uses charis 17 times, Lk. 8 and Jn. 4; the word is 
lacking in Matt. and Mk. With the exception of one text in 1 Pet., charisma is an 
exclusively Pauline concept (16 times). charizesthai occurs only in Paul (16 times) 
and Luke (Lk. 3 times; Acts 4 times), likewise charitoun (once each). 

1. In Jesus’ teaching the concept of grace in the sense of the undeserved gift of. 
God evidently did not occur. But the theme of his teaching and his acts as a whole 
centred on God’s condescension to the weak, poor, hopeless, lost (Matt. 11:5, 
28 ff.; Mk. 10:26 ff.; Lk. 15). Immeasurable remission of debt (Matt. 18:21-34), 
gracious reward in the kingdom of God (Matt. 20:1-16), and pardon leading to a 
new life (Lk. 13:6-8; 7:36-50; 19:9 f.) are central themes in his ministry. 

2. (a) In the few places where Lk. introduces the concept of grace into Jesus’ 
words it means reward in the last day, payment for something taken as a matter of 
course (Lk. 6:32-34; cf. Matt. 5:46; Lk. 17:9), and means almost the opposite 
to its basic meaning. In Lk. 4:22 the expression “words of grace”’ seems to include 
both the astonishing rhetorical force of Jesus’ words, his authority (see v. 22c “Is 
not this Joseph’s son?’’; cf. Eph. 4:29; Col. 4:6), the boldness of his claims (cf. 
v. 21 with vv. 18 f.), and also the content of his teaching (Matt. 11:5; cf. above 
1 (a)). 

Otherwise Lk. uses charis in its OT sense to express the favour and the accepta- 
bility of Mary or the child Jesus before God (1:30; 2:40) and men (2:52; quoting 



1 Sam. 2:26). In the history of doctrine a special significance attaches to the angel’s 
greeting to Mary, ‘Favoured one!” (kecharitomené Lk. 1:28; AV, “highly fa- 
voured’’). This does not exalt Mary in her essential being over the rest of mankind. 
(The same is true of Stephen, for example, who is full of grace, Acts 6:8.) But 
Mary is promised as a special favour of God a unique role in the history of God’s 
saving purposes, of being the handmaid of the Lord, and this came about (genoito, 
Lk. 1:38). 

(b) In Acts grace is that power which flows from God or from the exalted Christ, 
and accompanies the activity of the apostles giving success to their mission (Acts 
6:8; 11:23; 14:26; 15:40; 18:27). It appears in “the word of grace’”’ which is identi- 
cal with the > gospel (13:43; 20:24). The Lord himself confirms it (14:3). It is that 
which enables men to believe (18:27). The word of grace is that which builds 
up believers (20:32). Even where the sense “favour with men” is present God’s 
initiative is the decisive factor (2:47; 4:33). It occurs exclusively in the sense of 
human favour only in 24:27; 25:3, 9. The Pauline contrast of law and grace (cf. 
4 (a)) is echoed in the Peter’s speech which contrasted the unnecessary “‘yoke”’ 
(zygos, see Matt. 11:28 ff.) of — circumcision with “‘the grace of the Lord Jesus” 
(15:10 f.). 

charizesthai is employed in Acts 4 times in the sense of granting someone’s life 
to a third party (3:14; 27:24) and handing over someone (25:11, 16). 

3. In Jn. charis occurs 4 times in the prologue only, where it is perhaps influenced 
by Pauline thought. It plays no further part in the Gospel. The antithesis of law and 
grace (1:17) is typically Pauline (cf. 4 (a)). The evangelist has here, as in 1:14 (cf. 
Exod. 34:6, “abounding in steadfast love [hesed] and faithfulness [’*met]), linked 
charis with one of his favourite concepts, — truth. As in Paul, the event of Christ 
(here in particular in his earthly life) is identified with grace. As in Eph., Col., and 
the Pastorals (see below 5 and 6), grace is seen as the essence of his — glory (doxa, Vv. 
14); it is poured out in overflowing — fullness (charin anti charitos, ‘grace upon 
grace,” v. 17; cf. v. 14). In the teaching of Jn. as a whole, the gift which the Revealer 
brings such as “‘life’ and ‘“‘light’’ are identified with Jesus Christ himself, and can 
only be understood as gifts of his grace (— “I am”’ sayings). 

4. For Paul charis is the essence of God’s decisive saving act in Jesus Christ, 
which took place in his sacrificial death, and also of all its consequences in the 
present and future (Rom. 3:24 ff.). Therefore, the use of charis at the beginning 
and end of the Pauline letters is much more than a mere polite cliché. ‘“‘Grace’’ is 
not just a good wish for salvation; it is qualified as the grace of Christ (cf. 2 Cor. 
13:13 [EVV v. 14], where it is linked with the name of Jesus). 

(a) The apostle unfolds the reality and power of charis in a stubborn conflict 
with Rab. ideas of justification by works and synergism (see above oT 5; > Law 
NT 2). This leads him to set up in contrast two antithetical, mutually exclusive 
series of ideas: grace, gift, the righteousness of God, superabundance, faith, gospel, 
calling, in grace and hope on the one side; and law, reward, sin, works, accomplish- 
ment owed, one’s own righteousness, honour, worldly wisdom, futility on the 
other side. The person and work of the Son made it possible for justice in the 
judge’s pardon not to conflict with grace (Rom. 3:21 ff.; 8:32; Gal. 2:20 f.; Phil. 
2:8 ff.). In Christ, therefore, God’s grace is given as a precious gift (1 Cor. 1:4). 
Apart from him there can be no talk of grace (cf. 1 Cor. 1:30 f.; see also Jn. 1:14, 



16f.). But this also means that grace can never become a quality which an indivi- 
dual may possess in his own right, nor may it ever be placed at his disposal. 

(b) In the following extracts from his letters Paul uses the series of ideas men- 
tioned above, or aspects of them. charis occurs in a central position, or at the 
climax of the argument. Most often it is defined by means of a contrast. 

(i) Rom. 3:21-31: Men are justified by his (God’s) grace as a gift (dorean; — 
Gift, art. doron) through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus (v. 24). Here grace 
is pardon by the divine judge who reckons to the sinner the — righteousness of 

(ii) Rom. 4:2, 25: The ideas “‘of grace [kata charin]’ and ‘‘as debt [kata 
opheiléma]’, i.e. a reward for work accomplished, are mutually exclusive (v. 4). 
“That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promises may rest on grace and 
be guaranteed to all his [Abraham’s] descendants — not only to the adherents of the 
law but also to those who share the faith of Abraham, for he is the father of us all’’ 
(v. 16). Only the free gift of God ensures the extension of the saving —> promise 
to all men. 

(iii) Rom. 5:15-21 and 6:1: Rom. 5:15 declares that “‘the free gift [charisma] 
is not like the trespass [paraptoma].’’ Here charisma is used in the sense of charis. 
charisma is the gift of life, which as “‘the grace of God and the free gift in the grace 
of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many”’ (v. 15, cf. by contrast v. 20b). 
But grace is not given to let men go on in — sin (6:1). It does not owe its origin 
to sin, nor can it be manipulated by men. It is a new reality, a dominion estab- 
lished once and for all by Jesus Christ. Like a mighty lord, it exercises kingly rule 
(basileuein). Its ground is the new — righteousness of Christ, and its — goal is 
eternal — life (5:21). 

(iv) Rom. 6:12-23 carries this thought further. Vv. 14 f. argue that the man who 
has died with Christ and lives in him (cf. v. 11) no longer lives under the dominion 
of sin (hamartia), but under that of grace. V. 15 takes up the formula and guards 
against its misunderstanding (as above in 6:1 f.). God’s gracious gift (charisma) of 
eternal life has made the power of death as the wages of sin something that belongs 
to the past which is now done away with (v. 21 ff.). 

(v) Rom. 11:5 f.: “God’s gracious choice’ (eklogé charitos) and the life based on 
—> “‘works’’ (ex ergon) have nothing in common. Otherwise grace would no longer 
be pure grace. It would be compromised by the Rab. principle of accomplishment 
and achievement (see above OT 5). 

(vi) 2 Cor. 1:12. To the Jewish desire for control of one’s fate through works of 
law (see (i), (ii), (v)) corresponds the Greek striving for autonomy by means of 
earthly —- wisdom (sophia sarkiké). Grace opposes the pride of both as the sole 
source of power for the apostolic mission (see below) and for the Christian’s life 
(cf. 1 Cor. 1:30f.). 

(vii) In Gal. 2:21 Paul formulates the climax of his theology of grace: “I do not 
nullify the grace of God; for if justification were through the law [dia nomou], then 
Christ died to no purpose” (here dorean in its negative sense). 

(viii) Gal. 5:1-6. Paul accuses the Galatian churches in v. 4 of doing what he 
repudiated for himself in 2:21, i.e. of wanting by implication to be justified through 
the law. By doing this he says that they are “severed from Christ’? and “‘fallen 


away from grace.” They have plunged into the abyss of their own righteousness 
and thus of bondage. 

(c) Apart from the antithetic use of charis and law, Paul employs the concept of 
grace in various other connections. (i) With the exclamation “‘but thanks be to 
God” (charis de t6 theo or té de thed charis; Rom. 6:17; 7:25; 1 Cor. 15:57; 2 Cor. 
2:14; 8:16; 9:15) at crucial points in his letters Paul praises the gracious acts of 
God (Rom. 7:25; cf. 1 Tim. 1:12; 2 Tim. 1:3; and in Heb. 12:28 the phrase echomen 
charin, “let us be grateful’? [RSV]). (ii) When one partakes in that which is by 
nature good without a load on the conscience, one does it “with thankfulness” 
(chariti) (1 Cor. 10:30). (ii) The spiritual song is understood as thankfulness to 
God (Col. 3:16). (iv) In 1 Cor. 16:3 and 2 Cor. 8:6, 7, 19, charis is the technical 
term for the gift of gratitude and love (RSV, NEB, “‘gift’’) for the collection for the 
Jerusalem community. 

(d) Arising out of the basic act of pardon and legal acquittal (Rom. 8:31 ff.), 
Paul understands the whole movement of the Christian life from beginning to end 
as grace (2 Cor. 6:1-9; Rom. 5:2; cf. also Jn. 1:16). It is guaranteed by being 
anchored in the purpose of God (prothesis) (Rom. 8:28). Human weakness, not 
self-determination, is its sphere of activity (2 Cor. 12:9). The grace of God makes 
the new man what he is (1 Cor. 15:10). (It might even be said that he remains as 
dependent on it as the released prisoner is upon the connections, help and tasks 
offered by the after-care service which make life in freedom possible for ‘him.) 
This is as true of the apostolic mission in particular (Rom. 1:5; 12:3; 15:5; 1 Cor. 
3:10; Gal. 2:9; Phil. 1:7) as it is of the Christian life in general (Rom. 12:3, 6; 
1 Cor. 1:4 ff.; 2 Cor. 4:15; 6:1; 8:1; 9:8, 14; Phil. 1:7, grace as the bond of 
fellowship). The relationship with Christ is frequently expressed by dia, through. 
When grace is said to be ‘‘given’’, or to “overflow” etc., the intention is to acknow- 
ledge its reality in human life, and not to imply that it is a thing or an object. 

(e) The manifold outworking of the one grace in individual Christians through 
the one — Spirit is called by Paul charisma, a personal endowment with grace. 
This is the specialized use of charisma as distinct from the general (see above on 
Rom. 5:15 f.; 6:23). In Rom. 12 and 1 Cor. 12 Paul develops the meaning of this 
special, spiritual endowment for service for the life of the community. It has both 
inward and outward-looking aspects: prophecy as a gift of proclamation, service, 
teaching (didaskalia), spiritual exhortation (paraklésis), leadership in the congrega- 
tion, and also beneficence and compassion (— Mercy; cf. Rom. 12:6-8). In add- 
ition Paul has already listed in 1 Cor. 12:9 ff. and 28 ff. — faith, the gift of healing, 
special authority to distinguish between spirits, speaking in tongues, the interpre- 
tation of tongues and, as first in the order of functions, the service of the — apostle 
(v. 28). It is inconceivable to Paul that there should be any Christian without some 
gift of grace. At the same time, a single individual may be characterized by more 
than one gift of grace. Paul himself had, beside his apostleship (2 Cor. 1:11), the 
gift of celibacy (1 Cor. 7:7) which did not belong of necessity to the apostalate 
(1 Cor. 9:5). He also had the gift of tongues (1 Cor. 14:18), and no doubt also 
prophecy, teaching and administration. Capacity for spiritual service is determined 
by one’s present charisma. It must not be overstepped through ambition (1 Cor. 
12:11-27; Rom. 12:3-—5; cf. also 1 Pet. 4:10). On the other hand, Paul encouraged 
desire (zé/oute) for the best gifts (1 Cor. 12:31), which can be attained not through 



achievements, but only through — prayer and obedience (— Faith, art. peithomai). 
Rom. 11:29 designates as charismata the abiding privileges of Israel in salvation 
history (cf. 9:4 f.). 

(f) The vb. charizomai, like the noun, is used chiefly in connection with the deci- 
sive, gracious gift of God. Rom. 8:32 speaks of the all-embracing gift of God in 
the giving of his Son (cf. Jn. 3:16). The Spirit of God leads to the knowledge of what 
God has bestowed (1 Cor. 2:12). Already in the old — covenant the free gift of 
God is linked only with the — promise (epangelia, Gal. 3:18), and not with the 
—> law. Readiness to suffer for Christ’s sake is, like faith, given to the church by 
grace for Christ’s sake. It is expressed in the pass. in Phil. 1:29, to avoid use of the 
divine — name. By the prayer of the household of Philemon the imprisoned Paul 
hoped that he would be granted to that church as a guest (pass. as above, Phim. 22). 

The second meaning of the vb. is to forgive (e.g. 2 Cor. 2:7, 10; cf. also Eph. 
4:32; Col. 3:13; 2:13). Christians are to forgive each other, since God in Christ 
(or the Lord) has forgiven them. In 2 Cor. 12:13 the vb. is used almost ironically to 
mean excuse. 

5. In the letter to the Ephesians charis occurs in only two places. It is used as 
indicated above under 4(b) in an antithetical connection: ‘“‘dead through our 
trespasses, made alive together with Christ, by grace [chariti] you have been saved’”’ 
(2:5): “by grace... through faith ... the gift of God” in opposition to “‘not your 
own doing ... not because of works, lest any man should boast” (2:8 f.). In con- 
trast to the earlier epistles, however, charis is connected in both places not with 
dikaioo, justify (which does not occur in Eph. and Col.), but with s6ézd, save. The 
emphasis is thus shifted from forensic justification to effective salvation (cf. R. 
Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1955, II 176), i.e. from pardon to 
blessing (Eph. 1:6). Hence grace is connected with charito6d, to favour, bless. It 
looks forward to exaltation (Eph. 1:6 f.; 2:7), though it is still related to ‘“‘redemp- 
tion through his blood” (1:7; cf. 2:15; 4:9). 

The cognitive aspect of grace which comes to men in the gospel is stressed in Col. 
1:6. Grace and — truth belong together (Col. 1:5b; cf. Jn. 1:14). In Eph. 4:7 
charis is used in the sense of charisma: “‘grace [charis] was given to each one of us 
according to the measure of the gift [ddrea] of Christ.” 

6. In the Pastorals 1 Tim. 1:12 ff. alludes autobiographically to Rom. 5:20b. 
2 Tim. 1:9 takes up the connection of the purpose of God and the grace of Christ 
(cf. Rom. 8:28 with 32), and gives with Tit. 2:11 a doxology of joy over the present 
—> revelation (phaneroo or epiphaind) of grace. As in Eph., grace and salvation are 
connected in Tit. 2:11 (sdtérios, saving); grace works to train us (paideuousa) away 
from the world and towards eschatological hope. In Tit. 3:7 grace has a double 
connection. On the one hand, it refers back to the Saviour Jesus Christ who pours 
out the renewing Holy Spirit (cf. vv. 5 f.). On the other, it is related to justification 
in the truly Pauline sense (dikaidthentes té ekeinou chariti, “justified by his grace’). 
Christ’s grace brings about — likewise forensically - the appointment of heirs to 
future life. Otherwise the Pastorals say nothing more about individual gifts of 
grace, but only speak of grace for office (so charis, 2 Tim. 2:1). charisma is passed 
on through the — laying on of hands (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6). 

7. Of the remaining NT epistles 1 Pet. and Heb. come nearest to the Pauline 
understanding of grace. 



(a) Like Eph. and Col., 1 Pet. does not specifically link grace and justification. 
It speaks of the grace of God which is given through Christ (1:10, announced by 
the prophets), the future revelation of which determines conduct and hope (1 :13), 
and as stewards of which, in its manifold forms (4:10; 5:10), Christians should 
live. Grace also permits the endurance of undeserved suffering to be understood as 
approved by God (2:19 f.; cf. also 5:10). In the concluding message the standing of 
the addressees in grace is confirmed as true (5:12). 

(b) Heb. 2:9 understands grace as God’s care in salvation history which is 
made effective in Jesus’ substitutionary death. Therefore the throne on which Christ 
sits to rule is ‘‘a throne of grace.’’ Here forgiveness (= grace and compassion, 
eleos; —-> Mercy) can be received from the one who can sympathize with the weak, 
for he has identified himself with them as high — priest. 

(c) The remaining texts in Heb. are concerned with the problem of cheap grace. 
In this they may be compared with similar texts in the Catholic Epistles. To abuse 
the spiritual gift by one’s way of life is worse than transgressing the Mosaic law 
(10:29); grace once abandoned is not to be regained (12:15 ff.). But firmness of 
heart remains, in spite of all exhortations, a gift of God and not the result of 
keeping special regulations (13:9). The danger of falling away occurs in Jas. 4:6; 
the Spirit’s offer of gifts outweighs his yearning demands (there follows a quotation 
from Prov. 3:34; cf. 1 Pet. 5:5, above or 2). 2 Pet. 3:18 can even paradoxically 
exhort us to grow in grace, in contrast to falling from our own firm position (cf. 
Gal. 5:4 with 1 Cor. 12:31). Jude 4 warns against the misuse (metatithémi) of grace 
to satisfy our passions, a danger which Paul had already repulsed in Rom. 6:1 (cf. 
above 4 (b) (11), (i1i)). 

8. In general the Apostolic Fathers hardened the development in the uncer- 
standing of grace which can be seen in the later Pauline and Catholic Epistles. 
Grace is institutionalized as grace for the community and for office. It is an aid for 
the preservation of correct — teaching and of the ethics of the new law (— com- 
mand, cf. R. Bultmann, op. cit., IT, 210 f., 216; T. F. Torrance, The Doctrine of 
Grace in the Apostolic Fathers, 1948). H.-H. Esser 
—> Gift, — Mercy, — Spirit 

(a). D. R. Ap-Thomas, “Some Aspects of the Root Ann in the Old Testament’’, JSS 2, 1957, 128- 
48; F. Buchsel and J. Herrmann, hileds, TDNT III 300—23; G. C. Berkouwer, The Triumph of 
Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth, 1956; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 1, 1952 
(see index); D. Doughty, “The Priority of CHARIS’, NTS 19, 1972-3, 163-80; W. Eichrodt, 
Theology of the Old Testament, I, 1961, II, 1967; O. Eissfeldt, ““The Promise of Grace to David in 
Isaiah 55:1—-5”’, in B. W. Anderson and W. Harrelson, eds., Jsrael’s Prophetic Heritage, 1962, 196- 
207; E. E. Ellis, “Spiritual Gifts in the Pauline Community’, NTS 20, 1973—4, 128-44; G. Farr, 
“The Concept of Grace in the Book of Hosea”, ZAW 70, 1958, 98-107; N. Glueck, Hesed in the 
Bible, 1967; E. Jauncey, The Doctrine of Grace, 1925; H.-J. Kraus, Worship in Israel, 1966; W. F. 
Lofthouse, “hén and hesed in the Old Testament’, ZAW 51, 1933, 29-35; H. D. McDonald, 
‘““Grace”’, ZPEB II 799-804; J. Moffatt, Grace in the New Testament, 1931; R. S. Moxon, The 
Doctrine of Sin, 1925; T. Y. Mullins, ““Greeting as a New Testament Form’’, JBL 87, 1968, 418— 
26; A. Nygren, Agape and Eros, 19537; W. L. Reed, ‘Some Implications of hén for Old Testament 
Religion’, JBL 73, 1954, 36-41; J. Schildenberger and G. Trenkler, “Grace’’, EBT I 337-44; 
C. Ryder Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Grace, 1956; N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the 
Old Testament, 1944, 94-130; O. J. Thomas, ‘‘Irresistible Grace’’, Vox Evangelica 4, 1965, 55S—64; 
T. F. Torrance, The Doctrine of Grace in the Apostolic Fathers, 1948; N. P. Williams, The Grace of 
God, 1930. 



(b). H. Braun, ‘‘Das Erbarmen Gottes tiber den Gerechten. Zur Theologie der Psalmen Salomos’’, 
ZNW 43, 1950-51, 1 ff. (reprinted Gesammelte Studien zum Neuen Testament, 1967", 8 ff.); and 
‘*R6m. 7, 7-25 und das Selbstverstandnis des Qumran-Frommen’’, ZTK 56, 1959, | ff. (reprinted 
op. cit., 100 ff.); U. Brockhaus, Charisma und Amt: Die paulinische Charismenlehre auf dem 
Hintergrund der friihchristlichen Gemeindefunktionen, 1972; N. Glueck, Das Wort hesed im 
alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch, BZAW 47, (1927) 19612; A. von Harnack, Sanftmut, Huld und 
Demut, 1920; J. Haspecker, ‘“Gnade’’, LTK IV 977-80; J. Hempel, Gott und Mensch im Alten 
Testament, 19362; M. Hengel, Nachfolge und Charisma, BZNW 34, 1968; N. J. Hein, E. Wirth- 
wein, G. Stahlin, E. Kahler, and W. Joest, ‘‘Gnade’’, RGG? II 1630 ff.; A. Jepsen, ‘““Gnade und 
Barmherzigkeit im Alten Testament’, KuD 7, 1961, 261-71; J. K6berle, Svinde und Gnade im 
religidsen Leben des Volkes Israel, 1905; O. Loew, Charis, 1908; E. Lohse, Martyrer und Gottes- 
knecht, 19632; H. Niederstrasser, Kerygma und Paideia. Zum Problem der erziehenden Gnade, \967; 
O. Perels, ‘charisma im Neuen Testament’’, Fuldaer Hefte, 15, 1964, 39 ff.; J. Schreiner, Sion — 
Jerusalem. Jahwes Konigssitz, 1963; H. J. Stoebe, “‘Die Bedeutung des Wortes hdsdd im Alten 
Testament”, Vetus Testamentum 7, 1961, 261-71; H. J. Stoebe, W. Kasch and W. Pannenberg, 
‘“Gnade’’, EKL | 1604 f.; G. P. Wetter, Charis, 1913; R. Winkler, ‘“Die Gnade im Neuen Testa- 
ment”, ZSTh 10, 1933, 642-80; J. Wobbe, Der Charisgedanke bei Paulus, 1932; J. Ziegler, Die 
Liebe Gottes bei den Propheten, Alttestamentliche Abhandlungen 11, 3, 1930. 


“Ed Any “EdAnv (Hellén), a Greek; ‘EAAd¢ (Hellas), Greece; 
‘EdAnvixoc (Hellénikos), Greek; ‘EAAnvic (Hellénis), a 
Greek woman; ‘EAAyviatnc (Hellénistés), a Hellenist; ‘“EAAnvioti (Helleénisti), 
adv. Greek, in the Greek language. 

cL Hellén means a Greek, as opposed to a Barbarian. In Homer the word denotes a 

Thessalian tribe in the region of Pharsalos. In Herodotus it has become the 
name for all Greeks. In between are the mythological genealogies which invented a 
hero, Hellen, son of Deucalion (there is also a tradition that he is a son of Z us), 
father of the Doric and Aeolian tribal heroes (as early as Hesiod). 

The opposition between Greek and non-Greek was one of culture and not 
religion. In the period after Alexander the Great, especially in the east, all who 
had adopted Greek language, culture and way of life were counted as “Greeks’’, 
even though they were of a different ethnic origin. 

oT 1. Inthe LXX Hellén is sometimes used for Heb. yawan or y*wanim (actually the 
Ionians; Dan. 8:21; 10:20). The experiences of the Jews under Antiochus IV 
Epiphanes resulted in the word Greek taking on the additional shade of meaning 
‘hostile to the Jews’’, as in 2 Macc. 4:36; 11:2; cf. Hellénikos in 4:10, 15; 6:9; 
11:24; 13:2. It thus had the overtone of pagan (— People, art. ethnos). In this way 
Hellén, originally a term of respect, was surrendered to the language of religious 
contempt, because the Jew began from his belief in the one God, whereas the 
Greek, in his contempt for the Jews, began from his philosophical culture. 
Elsewhere in the LXX Hellas occurs in Isa. 66:19; Ezek. 27:13 (in both cases for 
Heb. yadwadn; RSV Javan); 1 Macc. 1:1; 8:9; Dan. 11:2 v./.; Hellén for yawan in 
Joel 3(4):6; Zech. 9:13; Dan. 11:2; for p*/istim (Philistines) in Isa. 9:12 (11); and 
without Heb. equivalent in Joel 2:25 y./.; Dan. 7:6 v./.; 1 Macc. 1:10; 6:2 v.L; 
8:18; 3 Macc. 3:8; 4 Macc. 18:20; Hellénikos in Jer. 26 (46) :16; 27 (S0):16 Gn both 
cases the Heb. is different); 4 Macc. 8:8; Ezek. 4:8 v./.; Hellénis in 2 Macc. 6:8 v./. 



2. The world into which Christianity entered was characterized by the pervading 
influence of Gk. culture, above all in the eastern part of the Roman empire. The 
conquests of Alexander the Great and his policy of Hellenization, which was con- 
tinued by his successors, caused the Gk. language and Gk. ways to become the 
decisive cultural factor. Gk. cities arose everywhere, including Syria and Palestine, 
bursting the old tribal groupings of the native peoples (which was their professed 
intention). The upper strata in these cities spoke Gk. which became the language 
of trade in the eastern part of the Roman empire and which was also widely 
understood in Palestine. Just how far the process of Hellenization had gone can 
be seen, for example, in the case of the Jews of Alexandria in Egypt, for whom a 
Greek translation of the Bible, the LXX (Septuagint —> Glossary of Technical 
Terms) had to be made in the third century B.c. For many of the people no longer 
understood or spoke their ancestral Hebrew (Aramaic) tongue. The LXX was far 
from being the only translation. It became the best known, because it was adopted 
by the Greek-speaking Christians. This in turn led to new translations of the MT 
into Gk. in opposition to the LXX. (See further S. Jellicoe, The Septuagint and 
Modern Study, 1968, which contains an extensive bibliography.) 

Philo of Alexandria (c. 20 B.c.-c. A.D. 50) was a Hellenistic philosopher and 
writer who sought to restate Jewish belief in terms of Gk. philosophy. (For his 
major writings which were written in Gk see the table of abbreviations.) He 
developed an allegorical method of interpreting the OT which saw Gk. philosophical 
ideas embodied in the history and institutions of Israel. In his system he accorded a 
central place to the Logos (~~ Word) as the creative power which orders the world 
and the intermediary which enables men to know God. (On Philo see H. A. Wolf- 
son, “Philo Judaeus”’, in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. P. Edwards, IV, 1967, 
151-5; and Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity and 
Islam, I-II, 1962°.) Besides Philo there were numerous other Jewish authors who 
used Gk. language and thought forms to proclaim and spread as missionaries 
Jewish belief in God and the — law. Flavius Josephus (c. A.D. 37—c. 100) wrote his 
celebrated history of the Jewish War (c. 77, probably originally in Aramaic) and 
his Antiquities of the Jews (c. 94) with a view to gaining Roman sympathies. (See 
further H. Montefiore, Josephus and the New Testament, 1960.) 

1 Macc. gives an account of the heavy inroads the Gk. spirit and the Gk. 
attitude to life had made into the Jerusalem priesthood. There was even a risk of 
losing fundamental religious tenets, and many were prepared to apostatize from 
their fathers’ faith in God and turn from the— law. This and the violent 
and clumsy attempts at Hellenization made by Antiochus Epiphanes (d. 163 B.c.) 
provoked a reaction in the circles loyal to the law, which issued in the Maccabean 
movement (cf. 2 Macc. 6:1 ff.). Relatively soon, however, the Maccabees them- 
selves became Hellenized. Thus the ranks of pious Jews, loyal to the law, were 
penetrated by Gk. thought, teaching and myths (including the idea of tradition, 
the immortality of the soul, and myths of the beyond). Even the Rabbis understood 
Gk. and were acquainted with Homer. The very numerous Gk. loan-words in the 
Talmud and Midrash are evidence of the cultural supremacy of Greece, even in the 
realm of Judaism. A reaction which, however, could not make much headway, 
showed itself at the beginning of the second cent. A.D., when the learning of Gk. 
was prohibited. The prohibition was soon afterwards watered down to one against 



the learning of Gk. “‘wisdom”’ (Sot. 9:14; cf. Sot. 49b). The Jewish Karaite sect in 
the ninth cent. A.D. also arose in opposition to Gk. philosophy. In calling Jews 
back to a study of the Scriptures alone, it was opposing Gk. influences in the 
Talmud and other bodies of writing. 

NT In the NT Hellas, Greece, occurs only in Acts 20:2. Of the 26 occurrences of 

Hellén in the NT, 10 are in Acts and 13 in Paul’s letters; it does not appear in 
the Synoptics. Hellénis is found in Acts 17:12 and Mk. 7:26. It is used to describe 
the Syrophoenician woman, but it is not absolutely clear what is meant by the 
double description. It is certain that the woman who probably spoke Gk. was a 
pagan whom Jesus helped on account of her faith. ([Ed.] W. L. Lane suggests that, 
‘““She was a member of the Hellenized citizen class in the Phoenician republic of 
Tyre, a Gentile by birth and culture. She is designated a Syrophoenician because 
Phoenica belonged administratively to the province of Syria and was distinguished 
from Libophoenicia with its centre at Carthage in North Africa” [The Gospel of 
Mark, NLC 1974, 260; cf. Did. Sic. 19,93; Polyb. 3, 33; Strabo, 17, 3, 9].) Hellénikos, 
Greek (adj.), occurs only in Rev. 9:11. The name of the angel of the abyss is en té 
Helléniké (supply glossé), i.e. “‘in the Greek language’”’, Apollyon (— Destroy, art. 
apoleia NT 4). Hellénisti means in Greek; the title on Jesus’ cross was written in 
Hebrew, Latin and Greek (Jn. 19:20). The officer who rescued Paul from the mob 
was surprised to discover that Paul understood Gk. (Acts 21:37). 

Hellénistés (a new formation from the verb Hellénizein) means a man who speaks 
Gk. and lives as a Gk. (Acts 6:1; 9:29). In Acts 9:29 the word refers to Jews who 
sought to kill Paul, and in Acts 6:1 it refers to Gk.-speaking Jewish Christians 
who were strictly orthodox Jewish Christians and not Greeks at all. Paul’s later 
struggle for a gospel free from the law would otherwise be incomprehensible (cf. 
also Acts 10 f. and 15), and uncircumcised pagans were certainly not accepted into 
synagogue congregations. 

1. In Jn. 7:35 the Jews suggest that Jesus intends going to the Gk. dispersion, 
to the Jews who lived among the Greeks, and from this base to teach them. In 
Jn. 12:20 ff. Hellénes refers to Gk.-speaking proselytes (—> Conversion, art. 
prosélytos) and not pagans, for they wanted to worship in the — Temple. They 
wanted to see Jesus. This gives rise to a prospect of the mission to the Gentiles for 
which Jesus’ death is a prerequisite. It was Gk.-speaking Jewish Christians who 
first preached the gospel to the Greeks (Acts 11:20). This was done above all by 
Paul and his companions (Acts 17:4; 19:10; etc.). Whenever the Jews refused the 
message, Paul turned to the Greeks. Jews and Greeks lived everywhere side by 
side, with the result that mixed marriages took place. From one of these came 
Timothy (Acts 16:1). Paul was accused of taking Greeks into the Temple and thus of 
defiling it (Acts 21:28). Sometimes the word Hellén can also mean a proselyte 
(Acts 14:1; 17:4; — Conversion, art. prosélytos). 

2. The expression “‘Jews and Greeks” which occurs especially in Paul’s writings 
can stand for the whole of humanity (1 Cor. 1:24; 10:32; 12:13; Gal. 3:28; Col. 
3:11). The Jews are mentioned first as an expression of their privileged place in 
salvation history. But God is just as much God of the Greeks as of the Jews (Rom. 
10:12). Paul was set aside in a special way to exercise his apostolic ministry among 
the Greeks (Rom. 1:14; Gal. 1:16; 2:9; cf. Eph. 3:6 f.; 1 Tim. 2:7). Not all pagans 



were Hellénes, for alongside them Paul refers also to barbarians and Scythians 
(Rom. 1:14; Col. 3:11). The Hellénes were characterized by their seeking — 
wisdom (art. sophia), which made the cross of Christ seem folly to them (1 Cor. 
1:22 f.). 

The picture painted by Paulin Rom. | :18—32 of the Greeks (v. 16) or the heathen 
(— People, art. ethnos) is a gloomy one. Nevertheless, God directs his message 
as much to them as to the Jews (Rom. 1:16; 2:9, 3:9). If the Greek does good and 
fulfils what the law requires, he will receive honour like the Jew (Rom. 2:9 f., 
14-16; cf. Jer. 31:33 f.). (On revelation to the Gentiles — God, art. theos, NT 4 (b), 
9.) As the Greeks were all pagans from the beginning, the concepts pagan and 
Greek are interchangeable when contrasted with that of the Jew (cf. Rom. 3:29 f. 
with 1 Cor. 1:22—24). The Greeks figure here as the foremost representatives of the 
pagan world. The church in Corinth was given the warning not to offend the Jews, 
the Greeks or the church of God (1 Cor. 10:32). The non-Christian population of 
Corinth fell into the two first-mentioned groups, alongside which the church now 
stood as a new people (— People, art. /aos). 

In this new people of God, the — church, differences of origin are removed. 
God who in reality had always been the God of the Greeks (Rom. 10:12), though 
they did not recognize him, has now become consciously and in fact their God, in 
that they have believed in Jesus Christ and through the Holy Spirit they have been 
—> baptized into one — body (1 Cor. 12:13). 

Whoever has been baptized into Jesus Christ is God’s child and has put on 
Christ, whether he is Jew or Greek, and so the man who was born a Hellén now 
belongs to the offspring of — Abraham (Gal. 3:26—29). Being a Greek or a Jew 
belongs to the old man, which has to be put away along with all its evil character- 
istics (Col. 3:11; cf. v. 5-10, 12 f.). H. Bietenhard 
—> Israel, > People 

(a). A. W. Argyle, ““The Greek of Luke and Acts’’, NTS 20, 1973-74, 441-45; R. Bultmann, 
Primitive Christianity in its contemporary Setting, 1956; G. Dix, Jew and Greek: A Study in the 
Primitive Church, 1953; C. H. Dodd, The Bible and the Greeks, 1935; E. von Dobschiitz, ‘‘Hellen- 
ism”’, DAC I 547 ff.; F. C. Grant, Roman Hellenism and the New Testament, 1962; R. H. Gundry 
“The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine’, JBL 83, 1964, 404 f.; W. K. C. Guthrie, The 
Greeks and their Gods, 19547; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971; N. G. L. Hammond, 
History of Greece, 19677; M. Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, III, 1974; G. H. C. MacGregor and 
A. C. Purdy, Jew and Greek: Tutors unto Christ. The Jewish and Hellenistic Background of the 
New Testament, 19597; I. H. Marshall, ‘‘Palestinian and Hellenistic Christianity: Some Critical 
Comments”, N7S 19, 1972-73, 271-287; C. F. D. Moule, ““Once More, Who were the Hellenists ?”’ 
ExpT 70, 1958-59, 100 ff.; S. Safrai, M. Stern, D. Flusser and W. C. van Unnik, eds., The Jewish 
People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious 
Life and Institutions, I, 1974; Schtirer (see index); J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek ? How Much 
Greek Would the First Jewish Christians have Known? Supplements to NovT 19, 1968; J. B. Skemp, 
The Greeks and the Gospel, 1964; N. Turner, ““The Literary Character of New Testament Greek’’, 
NTS 20, 1973-74, 107-14; S. G. Wilson, The Gentiles and the Gentile Mission in Luke—Acts, 1973; 
H. Windisch, Hellén etc., TDNT II 504-16. 

(b). A. Bauer, Vom Griechentum zum Christentum, 1910; J. Jiithner, Hellenen und Barbaren, 1923; 
J. Kaerst, Geschichte des Hellenismus,? I, 1917, II, 1926; W. Nestle, Griechische Religiositat, ITI, 
1934, 5S ff.; F. R. Walton, “‘Griechische Religion”, RGG*, III 1860 ff.; U. von Wilamowitz- 
Moellendorff, Der Glaube der Hellenen, I—-II, (1931-32) 1955?. 




auxano and pleonazoé both denote increase in quantity or quality. auxano is a 
word to do with plant-life and originally denoted the natural process of growth 
into fruition. It is only used in a positive sense in the NT. pleonazo is a quanti- 
tative word which originally meant to overflow, and thus to exceed. In figurative 
NT usage the differences are still clearly discernible. 

acai avéw@ and abéavw (auxd, auxand), grow, cause to grow, 
| increase; aUénaic (auxésis), growth, increase; 
bmepavcaven (hyperauxand), grow abundantly; npoxonn (prokopé), progress, 

advancement, furtherance; zpoxomtw (prokopto), go forward, advance, make 
progress, prosper. 

CL The vb. is attested since Pindar, both in the short form auxo and in the strength- 

ened form auxand, and means to cause to grow, to cause to increase. Trans. 
it is used equally for natural growth, such as that of fruits, and for increase and 
advancement in respect and power. The mid.-pass. can also mean to be exalted, 
glorified, or praised. The noun auxésis is used from the Pre-Socratics and Hdt. 
onwards, and means growth; in the phrase auxésin poieisthai, to cause to grow, to 
grow. hyperauxano is used from Andocides onwards, meaning to grow abundantly, 
plentifully, or extravagantly. The Lat. augere (increase, grow), augustus (august, 
venerable) are cognates. Probably deriving from the same root is Lat. auxilium 

Our word is particularly used of natural growth. On the same lines is the use of 
the word for the waxing of the moon and and the sun (Kalendarium of Antiochus 
[c. A.D. 200] on 25 Dec.; cf. E. Norden, Die Geburt des Kindes, 1924, 99 ff.; Arndt, 
121). No specific philosophical or religious significance stand out in the Gk. world, 
by contrast with prokopto and prokopé which both in Stoic philosophy and in 
Philo denote ethical advance. 

oT In the LXX auxano stands for pardh 11 times in the gal, meaning to be fruitful, 

plentiful; 8 times in the act. hiph. meaning to make fruitful or plentiful. God is 
mainly the subject of the process of causing growth (thus Gen. 17:20 of Ishmael; and 
Gen. 35:11 in the blessing to Jacob who is to become a great nation; cf. Jer. 3:16; 
23:3). It is frequently linked with pléthyno, to fill, to multiply, and occurs in the 
original creation ordinance to humanity and subsequently renewed to the Jewish 
people to be fruitful and multiply (Gen. 1:22, 28; 9:1, 7to Noah; 17:6 to Abraham). 
In the parabolic promise of Isa. 61:11 the process of growth is not viewed as 
something automatic and inevitable. The point of the comparison is the difference 
between the first state and the last. The surprising thing is that the beginning and 
and end stages are two completely different states. Where previously there was 
nothing, God’s creative will becomes effective: he creates righteousness and praise. 
Sir. 43:8 speaks of the waxing of the new moon. Here, too, God is the originator 
of the growth. 

NT 1. In the NT auxand is found 22 times, including 4 times in | and 2 Cor., twice 
in Eph., 3 times in Col., and 7 times in Lk. The noun auxésis occurs only in 
Eph. 4:16 and Col. 2:19 in connection with the vb. 



2. Natural growth is alluded to directly only in Lk. 1:80 and 2:40, where the 
child Jesus is said to grow in physique (—> Age) and in the — Spirit. 

3. (a) auxano features in Mk.’s version of the parable of the sower (Mk. 4:8), the 
parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:32; Lk. 13:19), and the saying about the 
lilies of the field (Matt. 6:28). According to the synoptic account of Jesus’ preaching, 
the picture of plant-like growth illustrates the coming of the kingdom through the 
word in the face of all opposition. God is the one who causes to grow that which 
he himself sows through Jesus, or plants through his servants (cf. also 1 Cor. 3:6 f.; 
2 Cor. 9:10). 

(b) In the teaching of Paul auxano is significantly lacking in Rom. and Gal. It is 
not part of the doctrine of justification, but belongs to paraenesis. Only God can 
cause the church to grow (1 Cor. 3:5-11). Only by remembering its origin which is 
given in Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11) can the church truly grow (— Firm, art. theme- 
lios NT 1). The thought here is not solely of numerical increase, but also of maturity 
and the consolidation of the community in Christ from which good works naturally 
grow (2 Cor. 9:6-11). 

(c) Eph. 2:20 ff. does not contradict the picture of 1 Cor. 3:11, where the apostles 
and prophets are said to be the foundation on which the building grows (~ House, 
art. oikos, oikodomeo). For Jesus Christ is described as “‘the chief cornerstone”’ 
(cf. Pss. 118:22; Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10 f.; Lk. 20:7; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7; 
—> Rock, Stone, Cornerstone, art. gdnia). Moreover, the church was by this time 
uniquely dependent on the witness of the apostles and prophets for the preaching 
of Christ. Therefore the growth of the community in Eph. derives ultimately from 
Jesus Christ who at the same time holds the building together (cf. 2:20 f. with 
1:5ff., 10; 2:10; 4:15f.). Growth does not mean that the gospel calls men into some 
kind of extra-historical existence. Because Christians are placed in the fellowship 
of the people of God, they are thereby placed in a historical process which is de- 
termined by the promise of the world-wide rule of Christ. The existence together 
of Jews and Gentiles as children in the presence of the Lord of the church opens up 
a new dimension for the church as it grows into a single structure. ““The growth of 
the church in personal holiness in Christ is a continuous process. The present tense 
of auxein makes this clear. auxein is the mode of the church’s being. The church 
exists as it grows. It is only ever holy in so far as being holy, it becomes holy, and 
both ‘in Christ’? CH. Schlier, Der Brief an die Epheser, 1965°, 144). 

(d) The conception of building corresponds with that of the growing — body 
(Eph. 4:15 f.; Col. 2:19). Some scholars think that both ideas are taken from 
enosticism. Eph. 4:15 f. shows the way that this growth is to take place. When 
truth is spoken in love, and love takes effect, the church grows into Christ, the 
one —> head. According to Col. 1:6, all growth springs from the gospel. As men 
are moved by the gospel, they grow in knowledge of God (Col. 1:10 f.) and in 
grace (cf. 2 Pet. 3:18). 

4. The NT can also speak of growth in — faith (2 Cor. 10:15; 2 Thess. 1:3; 
2 Pet. 3:18 y./.). Faith is conditioned by one’s personal circumstances as well as by 
God’s saving acts in history. It is brought about and renewed by the — Word, the 
living Christ himself. But it undergoes transformation in the life of the Christian. 
The believer always has his own particular history in relation to his Lord. He lives 
between the “‘no longer’ and the “not yet” (cf. Phil. 3:12-15; R. Bultmann, 



Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 322). The decision which leads to — bap- 
tism is admittedly taken only once, but faith needs to be constantly renewed (cf. 
Rom. 14:1; 1 Thess. 3:10). Faith grows out of the obedience of the believer in the 
fellowship of the Christian community (2 Thess. 1:3; cf. Phil. 1:25 f.). It leads to a 
more effective — witness in the world (2 Cor. 10:15 f.). Quantitative and qualita- 
tive growth are closely connected. The final goal of growth in faith is the day of 
Christ (Phil. 1:6). Growing faith always works outwards, bringing — fruit and 
bearing witness (2 Thess. 1:3; 2 Cor. 10:15). A summons to growth in faith can 
even be given in the imperative (2 Pet. 3:18 v./.). 

5. In Acts growth is an important word for the missionary activity of the com- 
munity (6:7; 12:24; 19:20). Acts 7:17 (“the people grew and multiplied in Egypt’’) 
provides a clear reminder of OT salvation history. The promise to Israel (Exod. 
1:7) is eschatologically applied to the Christian community (Acts 12:24; cf. also 
Did. 16:3; 1 Clem. 33:6). 

6. The derivation of the expression “‘He must increase, but I must decrease”’ is 
disputed. R. Bultmann traces it back to an astral picture (The Gospel of John, 1971, 
174). G. Delling rejects this in favour of the ancient linguistic usage of increasing or 
decreasing in esteem or importance (JT DNT VIII 519). The emphasis surely lies 
here on increase in influence and importance. The Baptist points to his Lord and 
withdraws his own light so that the One to whom he points may be seen. 

auxano is distinguished from the noun prokopé (Phil. 1:25; 1 Tim. 4:15) and the 
vb. prokopté (Lk. 2:52; Rom. 13:12; Gal. 1:14; 2 Tim. 2:16; 3:9, 13) meaning 
advance, progress, in that in the NT it occurs exclusively in a positive sense. It has 
thus more positive theological associations. For not every ‘‘advance”’ is also 

“growth”. W. Giinther 
 mheovilo | mtAeovacw (pleonazo), to be or become more or great, to 
| Aeowlben grow, to increase ; Ume pm Acovaca (hyperpleonazo), to be 

present in great abundance. 

CL pleonazo, used from Thuc. onwards, is formed from pleon (more), the com- 

parative of polys (much, many), with the ending -azein, and means to be or 
become (too) much or many. The augmented form hyperpleonazé, to be present 
in excessive quantity, is rare. The developed basic meaning of pleonazo appears 
intrans. as to be or become (too) great, to exceed the correct amount, and thus fig. 
to be overweening or to become presumptuous. It also means to overflow (of a sea 
or a river), to augment, to become (too) numerous (e.g. the Jews in Rome), to be 
present in plentiful abundance (e.g. joys), to be rich in something, to have more than 
is necessary, to abound in, and, as a commercial term, to have a balance (of cash). 
Trans. pleonazé occurs as to make rich, to increase or multiply, to cause to grow. 
In ethical contexts (as in Thuc., Dem., Aristot., Stoics) pleonazod denotes in a 
censorious way that which violates the ideal of moderation, reason and natural 

oT The LXX has pleonaz6 28 times; of these, 18 render Heb. equivalents, generally 
‘adap to be surplus, and rabah to be or become many: e.g. of good (Exod. 16:18, 



23), people (1 Chr. 4:27; 5:23; Jer. 30:19), money etc. (2 Chr. 24:11; 31:5; Sir. 
35:1), sins (Sir. 23:3). 

NT In the NT pleonazo occurs 9 times (intrans. 7 times in Paul and 2 Pet. 1:8; 

trans. in 2 Thess. 1:3); hyperpleonaz6 only in 1 Tim. 1:4. It always expresses 
in the NT a process of growing, multiplying or increasing. It stands in contrast with 
perisseuo which expresses in an eschatological sense the element of the abundance 
which far exceeds all measurement and of the fullness which overflows all previously 
fixed boundaries (— Fullness, art. perisseud). pleonazo renders more the idea of 
development, the growth process of something: “that grace may abound” (Rom. 
6:1); “your faith is growing” (2 Thess. 1:3); “‘if these things [godliness, love etc. ] 
abound” (2 Pet. 1:8). perisseud exceeds pleonaz6 in expressing superabundant > 
quantity. This emerges in a number of passages, in which both terms stand in the 
same context. 

1. In Rom. 5:20 Paul is formulating the relationship between — law and — 
grace. Through the — law (art. nomos) sin increases (pleonaz6) to its full extent 
and exposes the hopelessness of humanity in the face of death. But grace has 
abounded all the more (Aypereperisseusen) in the new age. The more hopelessly 
man entangles himself in increasing sin, the greater is God’s liberating act in giving 
pardon. This view of the relationship between sin and grace obviously led to a 
misunderstanding in Judaism, which Paul goes into in Rom. 6:1 ff. 

It is interesting that Paul here (6:1) now uses pleonaz6 with reference to grace 
and not, as one might have supposed, perisseuo. In this context Paul is concerned 
with the process of grace becoming greater. It cannot be stimulated by a conscious 
persistence in sin. 

2. 2 Cor. 4:15 also links charis, grace, with pleonazo. As grace extends ( pleonasa- 
sa) to more and more people, thanksgiving overflows (perisseusé) to the glory of 
God. ‘‘Grace makes its way on earth” (G. Klein). 

3. In Phil. 4:17 Paul links pleonaz6 with various business terms (eis logon doseds 
kai lempseos, in settlement of giving and receiving [of a mutual account], v. 15; cf. 
Arndt, 479; eis logon hymon, credited to your account, v. 17; cf. Arndt, 479). 
pleonazé is also to be understood from this context. With reference to the contribu- 
tion of the Philippians Paul says: “It is not the gift that I value; what is valuable to 
me is the interest that is mounting up [pleonazonta] in your account’’ (JB). The use 
of perisseud in v. 18 (‘I have more than enough’’) shows again the particular thrust 
of pleonazo. 

4. Paul prayed that the Lord might grant the Thessalonians to grow (pleonasai) 
and overflow (perisseusai) in — love for one another (1 Thess. 3:12). pleonazein 
is thus intensified by perisseuein. 

5. pleonazo occurs in the sense of perisseud in the OT quotation (Exod. 16:18) 
in 2 Cor. 8:15: ““He who gathered much had nothing over’’, i.e. had no more than 
was necessary. W. Bauder, D. Miiller 
—> Fruit, — Seed 

G. Delling, pleonazo etc., TDNT V1 263-74; G. Stahlin, prokopé etc., TDNT VI 703-19; and ‘‘Fort- 
schritt und Wachstum. Zur Herkunft und Wandlung neutestamentlicher Ausdrucksformen’’, 
Festgabe fiir J. Lortz, Wl, 1957, 13-25. 



Guard, Keep, Watch 

People only guard things which they think are valuable, whether they are 
people, prisoners or things. To guard something is to make oneself dependent on 
what one guards, because it can only be done by sacrificing time and freedom to it. 
téreo and phylasso are verbs which express this watching over and guarding. Both 
were originally used in the former sense, but were then applied figuratively to 
preserving the law, commandments and traditions. Anyone who keeps such. ordi- 
nances thereby allows his life and actions to be determined by them. 

| ; TH pE@ (téred), preserve, keep; ty pnaic (térésis), observ- 
TY PEW | : iiss 
ance; 7apatn pém (paratéred), watch (closely), observe; 

A paty pyaic (parateérésis), observation. 

CL téred means: (a) have in view, perceive, observe; then (act.) wait for (the right 

time or opportunity), lie in wait for (a person); (mid) be on the watch, be on 
one’s guard; (b) guard, watch over, preserve (things, persons, and also ethical 
values, e.g. loyalty, faith, chastity); (c) pay attention to, obey, comply with (teach- 
ings, customs, legal demands). The derivative noun térésis (Thuc. onwards) conse- 
quently means: (a) guard, custody, detention; (b) prison; (c) (fig.) observance, 
obeying, fulfilling (of commands, laws). The compound paratéred (Dem. onwards) 
is identical with the simple vb. in act. and mid., but the noun paratérésis (first in 
Polyb.) is used only for the observance of legal demands. 

oT 1. In the LXX — phylassé is much commoner than téred, which is found only 

38 times — in addition variations in Symm., Theod., Alexandrinus add 6 more 
cases — of which a good two-thirds come in the translation of the Heb. canonical 
books, and the remainder in the Apoc. A majority of the passages are in the Wisdom 
Literature (Prov. has 15), then come the historical books. There is only one example 
in the prophetic books (Jer. 20:10), interestingly enough in the lit. sense of lying 
in wait for a person. Like phylasso, though not in the same proportion, téred 
mainly represents the Heb. Samar, the nuances of which (according to Koehler- 
Baumgartner, 993 f.) are very much the same as those in the secular meanings of 
phylass6 and téred, and also nasar. The predominant meaning of téred in the LXX 
is that of religious observance with either God’s commands (1 Sam. 15:11; Prov. 
19:16) or those of Wisdom (Prov. 3:1) as the object. There is an interesting parallel- 
ism between phylasso and téred in Prov. 13:3; 16:17; 19:16: he who guards his 
mouth, his way, keeps the commandment (in each case phylasso) preserves or keeps 
his life (tered). For Dan. 9:4, where God’s covenant loyalty — téred with diathéké — 
is made dependent on the obedience of the community — phylass6. téred is also 
used a few times of the guarding of persons or things, and in Gen. 3:15 of the 
woman’s seed and the serpent. 

2. terésis is found in the LXX only in apocryphal books. In Wis. 6:18, Sir. 32:23 
it is used for the result of the love of wisdom or of the commandments. Otherwise 
it is used for the guarding of persons, or of the city. paratéreé is found only 6 times 
in the LXX, generally with the force of waylay, lie in wait for. paratérésis is found 
only as a variant reading in Exod. 12:42. 



NT 1. There are only 31 instances of phylasso in the NT as against the more than 

400 in the LXX, but téred is found 70 times to the LXX’s 38. Thus the NT 
prefers the word less used in the LXX. This is particularly noticeable in John 
(Gospel, 18 times; Letters, 7 times) and Acts (11 times). It cannot be said with 
certainty whether this is due to this word’s being particularly suited to convey a 
spiritual meaning. 

In the NT it means: (a) guard, keep watch (e.g. Acts 16:23; Matt. 27:36); (b) 
keep (e.g. Jn. 2:10; 12:7; 2 Pet. 2:4); (c) keep blameless, uninjured (e.g. | Thess. 
5:23; 1 Cor. 7:37; 1 Tim. 5:22); (d) protect (e.g. Jn. 17:15); (e) hold fast (e.g. 
Rev. 16:15; Eph. 4:3); (f) hold, follow, e.g. the law (Jas. 2:10), the — sabbath 
(Jn. 9:16), traditions (Mk. 7:9), the commands of Jesus (Jn. 14:15, 21; 15:10, etc.). 

2. Of the 70 occurrences in the NT barely a half are found with the last-men- 
tioned meaning, which is also approximately the case with phylasso. It is note- 
worthy, however, that in contrast to phylasso, with few exceptions (e.g. Mk. 7:9; 
Jn. 9:16; Jas. 2:10), téreo does not have the force of keeping Jewish or Judaizing 
(Acts 15:5) tradition rejected by the Christians (cf. the polemical use of paratéred 
in Gal. 4:10 applied to Jewish customs), but that of keeping a new Christian tradi- 

This is set out clearly in Christ’s final command (Matt. 28:20), where the exalted 
Christ commands the church to keep the new righteousness which he had 
taught, e.g. in the Sermon on the Mount. It is possible that in Matt. 19:17, in his 
conversation with the rich young man and in contrast to his legalistic righteousness 
(cf. phylasso), and in Matt. 23:3, where he contrasts the Pharisees’ teaching and 
practice, Jesus in demanding the keeping of the commandments meant the better 
righteousness (Matt. 5:20) and hence the true understanding of the Mosaic Law. 
If that is so, Matthew consciously uses téred in contrast to its apparent synonym 
phylasso. The same usage is found in | Cor. 7:19, where the keeping (térésis) of the 
commandments of God is to be understood in terms of Christian ethics. In the 
Pastorals (1 Tim. 6:14; 2 Tim. 4:7), however, téred is used like — phylasso of the 
keeping of the tradition. 

In Rev., linked with Jogos (word), entolé (command), and pistis (faith), tered has 
the force of keeping fast a confession, both in facing false doctrine and in meeting a 
martyr’s death (2:26; 3:3, 8, 10; 12:17; 14:12). All the Johannine passages, whether 
they are concerned with the keeping of the word or commandments by the church 
or the individual (e.g. Jn. 8:51; 15:10; 1 Jn. 2:3; 3:22), or with God’s or Christ’s 
keeping of the church (Jn. 17:11, 15; 1 Jn. 5:18), have to do with remaining in the 
church or in Christ. There is a special shade of meaning in Jn. 14:15, 21, 23 f. Here 
in the setting of Christ’s farewell discourse love to him, the revealer, is described 
as personal and immediate relationship to him. Bultmann points out that “keeping 
his commandments” or his “‘word”’ has here an anti-mystical point (The Gospel of 
John, 1971, 613 f.). 

The reference of paratérésis (observation) in Lk. 17:20 cannot be established 
with certainty. Probably the word is used of the observation of apocalyptic signs. 
There is, however, just the possibility that the keeping of the law is intended. 

paratéreo, apart from Gal. 4:10 (see above), is found only with the meaning of 
lie in wait for (Mk. 3:2 par. Lk. 6:7; 14:1; 20:20; Acts 9:24- Eng. versions 
“*watch’’). H.-G. Schiitz 



dvidoow (phylasso), guard, preserve, keep; dvAaky 
(phylaké), watch, guard, prison; dpovpéw (phroureod), 
guard, keep in custody, preserve. 

| dvAdaow | 

cL 1. The etymology of phylasso has not been established. In the act. it means, 
intrans.: (a) be sleepless, watch, keep guard, e.g. nykta phylasso (Homer), to 
watch all night; (b) serve as garrison (for or in a city). This leads to the trans. use: 
guard, provide with a guard, hold in prison; (c) guard, preserve — originally of 
things, property, persons and then fig. of love, loyalty, respect; (d) watch over, 
store (in safe keeping); (f) hold in honour (e.g. friendship), obey (an order, oath, 
law), attend to. In the mid. it has the same force as act. (a), (b), and also means guard 
for oneself, store, be careful, be on one’s guard. In the LXX it has also the force of 
act. (f). 
2. The vb. phroured, compounded of pro and hora-, to pay attention to something 
(—> See, art. horad), when used trans. has the same meaning as phylasso. 

oT In the LXX phroureo is found only 4 times, all in apocryphal books, and thus 
it does not represent any original Heb. word in the text. phylasso, on the other 
hand, is found well over 400 times, and in a number of the Pseudepigrapha, viz. 
Eth. Enoch, Aristeas, Test. XII, Sib., and in Philo. No distinction in meaning is 
made between act. and mid. 378 times it translates Samar, guard, watch, keep; 10 
times nasar, follow, obey; and in isolated cases 9 other Heb. verbs. While phylassé 
is found in almost all the books of the LXX, it is found most commonly in the 
Pent., apart from Gen., and especially in Deut., in 1-2 Ki. (LXX 3 Ki., 4 Ki.), 1-2 
Chr., Pss., Prov., Wis., Sir., Ezek. Its commonest use is for the obedience to and 
keeping of the law, cultic regulations, the word of God in general or of the cove- 
nant. The subject of the vb. can be the whole people of Israel, groups within it, 
or individuals (Exod. 12:24; Lev. 18:4; Deut. 5:1; Ps. 78[77]:10; Prov. 19:16; 
Ezek. 11:20). It is easy to trace the development of the concept in the OT from the 
original thought of fulfilling the covenant obligations (positive or negative) to the 
inter-testamental idea of keeping the law as the way to salvation (cf. Dan. 9:4 and 
various passages in 1 and 4 Macc., e.g. 1 Macc. 2:53; 8:26, 28; 4 Macc. 5:29; 
6:18; 15:10; 18:7). Hence at the end of this development of meaning the covenant 
loyalty of God is regarded as dependent on the keeping of the law by the community. 
({Tr.] This is undoubtedly the general impression created, but does not do justice 
to all the evidence. Much in the Jewish prayer-book, or a Midrashic saying like, 
“It was not for their works that the Israelites were delivered from Egypt, or for 
their father’s works, and not by their works that the Red Sea was cloven in sunder, 
but to make God a name” [C. G. Montefiore and H. Loewe, eds., A Rabbinic 
Anthology, 1938, 92] shows that apparently positive remarks about Israel’s keeping 
of the law have to be interpreted in a wider framework.) The use of Samar in the 
Qumran literature, above all in the Manual of Discipline and the Damascus 
Document, shows this tendency predominantly (1 QS 5:2, 9; 8:3; CD 2:18, 21; 
3:2 f.; 6:14, 18; 10:14, 16; 16:7; 19:1 f., 9. 28; 20:17, 22; on legalism at Qumran 
see M. Black, The Scrolls and Christian Origins, 1961, 118-24, 169 ff.). The other 
meanings of phy/ass6 enumerated under ct are also found in the LXX but much 
more rarely. To be stressed is the usage found especially in the Pss., of God’s 
protecting actions for his people or the pious (cf. Ps. 12:7[8]; 17:8; 145:20). 



NT 1. In the NT phylassé means: (a) keep watch (Lk. 2:8); (b) guard (e.g. Acts 

12:4; 23:35); (c) protect, guard (of God or Christ: Jn. 17:12; 2 Thess. 3:3; 
2 Tim. 1:12; 2 Pet. 2:5; Jude 24; or of men: Jn. 12:25); in the mid. or with a reflex. 
pron., beware of, abstain from (Lk. 12:15; Acts 21:25; 2 Tim. 4:15; 2 Pet. 3:17; 
| Jn. 5:21); (d) observe, hold, e.g. the law (Gal. 6:13), the commandments (Mk. 
10:20 par. Matt. 19:20, Lk. 18:21), the words of Jesus (Jn. 12:47), the decisions 
of the apostles (Acts 16:4). 

2. Obey, hold: in each of the first two Gospels the word is used once only: Matt. 
19:20; Mk. 10:20. In each case it has the contemporary religious sense of keeping 
the law (see above oT). Although both here and in Lk. 18:21 there is no direct 
criticism of Jewish observance of the law, the radical demand made by Jesus on 
the rich young ruler is indirectly a complete rejection of it. 

Paul uses it only in the Jewish sense, but the context can give it a particular 
nuance. In Rom. 2:26 it is anti-legal; in Gal. 6:13 anti-Judaistic. 

The same connotation of keeping the law is found in Acts 7:53, where Stephen 
in his defence denies that the Jews had ever kept the law, i.e. their conception of 
how the law should be kept was rejected from the standpoint of primitive Chris- 
tianity. Acts 21:24 approves of the Jewish observance, because the Jewish Christian 
also did so. Luke shows Paul in agreement with the Jewish Christian standpoint. 

The Jewish legacy to primitive Christianity is found in a much more important 
form when phylasso is used with tradition, the handing on of the Christian message 
and teaching. In Acts 16:4 Paul and Timothy delivered to the churches of Asia 
Minor the dogmata, decisions (~ Command), of the original apostles, who 
represented the one, true church. There is a similar concept in the Pastorals (1 
Tim. 5:21; 6:20; 2 Tim. 1:14). The future of the church depends on the disciples 
of the apostles guarding, working out, making real the inheritance from the apostles. 
Note 2 Tim. 1:12 where the Lord himself guards it. While Protestants are apt to see 
here elements leading to Catholicism, it is highly probable that in the position 
portrayed by Luke and the Pastorals this step of stressing tradition was necessary and 
unavoidable. phylasso is found frequently in Luke (2:8; 11:21; 12:15) and Acts (12: 
4; 23:35) inits lit. meaning. It also has alit. sense in 2 Tim. 4:15; Jn. 12:25; 2 Pet. 2:5. 

In Jn. 12:47 the expression “[not to] keep my words” means quite simply not to 
believe in me, Jesus, as the Revealer sent by God. Belief and keeping Jesus’ words 
are defined in terms of each other.) 

3. Protect, guard: 2 Thess. 3:3 deals with preserving the church’s faith: God is 
the One who guards the church from the evil one (NEB). The basic thought of the 
passage is eschatological; the concrete background is the threat of a rising false 
doctrine within the church. The position is similar in Jude 24 and Phil. 4:7 (where 
phroured, guard [cf. 2 Cor. 11:32], is used as also in | Pet. 1:5). The church is 
commended to the protection of God in its fight against false doctrine. In Jn. 15:21 
the church is exhorted to be itself on guard against idols. Jn. 17:11 f. is concerned 
with the maintenance of the unity of the church and its exclusive relationship to 
Christ. Here pAylass6 and téreo are used together as synonyms; God, or Christ, 1s 
the subject. phroured is used in Gal. 3:23 in a special sense for the role of the law in 
the history of salvation: ““Now before faith came, we were confined [ephrourou- 
metha] under the law, kept under restraint until faith should be revealed”’ (RSV). 

H.-G. Schiitz 



4. The noun phylaké means: (a) guard or watch (of the shepherds over their 
flocks in Lk. 2:8); (b) the place of guarding or prison; Matt. 5:25 par. Lk. 12:58 
as a picture of the place of judgment; Matt. 14:3, 10 par. Mk. 6:17, 27, Lk. 3:20 
of John the Baptist; Matt. 18:30 again as a picture of judgment in the parable of 
the unforgiving servant; Lk. 21:12 in the context of warnings about what will 
happen to Christ’s disciples; Lk. 22:33 of Peter’s professed willingness to go to 
prison; Lk. 23:19, 25 of Barabbas; Acts 5:19, 22, 25 of the imprisonment of Peter; 
Acts 8:3; 22:4; 26:10 of Saul’s (Paul’s) erstwhile persecution of believers; Acts 
12:4 f., 10 of Peter’s escape from prison; Acts 16:23, 24, 27, 37, 40 in the accounts 
of Paul and Silas at Philippi; 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23 in Paul’s account of how Christ 
has enabled him to triumph over weakness and calamity; Heb. 11:36 in the list of 
trials that have been overcome by faith; 1 Pet. 3:19 of “the spirits in prison”’ 
identified by B. Reicke as the underworld or place of punishment in — hell (cf. 
The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 1946, 116 f.), also Death, art. 
thanatos NT 2 (b); Rev. 2:10 of the fate of some of the believers at Smyrna who are 
exhorted to remain faithful unto death so that they may receive the crown of life; 
Rev. 18:2 of the fallen city of — Babylon which has become the “‘haunt”’ (Arndt, 
875; RSV) of every unclean spirit and bird; Rev. 20:7 of the place in which — 
Satan is cast for a period of a thousand years prior to the final tribulation and his 
ultimate subjection (— Chiliasm in the Glossary of Technical Terms); (c) guard, 
sentinel (Acts 12:10); (d) watch of the night reflecting the Roman practice of 
dividing the time between 6 p.m. and 6 a.m. into four periods (Matt. 14:25; Mk. 
6:48; cf. Josephus, Ant. 18, 356), though Matt. 24:43 and Lk. 12:38 may reflect 
the Heb. and Gk. practice of having only three watches (Arndt, 875; cf. Josephus, 
War, 5, 510). Mk. 13:35 uses the common designations opse (late, in the evening), 
mesonyktion (at midnight), alektorophonia (at cock-crow), proi (early, early in the 
morning), all in the context of the exhortation to watch, “for you do not know when 
the master of the house will come.”’ 

Related words which occur in the NT are: phylakiz6, imprison (Acts 22:19); 
phylaktérion, lit.a safeguard, means of protection, especially an amulet or phylactery 
(Matt. 23:5, a small box containing scripture texts bound on the forehead and arm 
during prayer, cf. Exod. 13:9, 16; Deut. 6:8; 11:18; they were regarded as a mark 
of devotion to the law and also as a protection against demonic influence [Arndt, 
876; but see also D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 310; and J. Bowman, 
Stud. Ev., I, 1959, 523 ff., who thinks that prayer-bands were not so-called in the 
time of Jesus and that the reference is a warning against ostentatious wearing of 
amulets or charms]; they are mentioned in the context of warnings against Phari- 
saic concern for merely external righteousness); phylax, guard, sentinel (Matt. 
27:65D; Acts 5:23; 12:6, 19). C. Brown 

ypnyo pew | y pn yo péw (grégored), watch, be on the alert, be watchful. 

OT grégoreod is a late pres. found in Hel. Gk. and is formed from the perf. egrégora 

of egeiro (rouse, stir). In the LXX it stands for ‘amad (stand) in Neh. 7:3, and 
for Sagad (watch) in Jer. 5:6; 38(31):28; Lam. 1:14; Dan. 9:14 (Theod.). It has 
no Heb. equivalent in Bar. 2:9; 1 Macc. 12:27; Test. Ben. 10:1; cf. Josephus, Ant. 
11, 47. 



NT Followers of Christ are exhorted to be watchful and alert either to dangers or 
for opportunities in Matt. 24:42; 25:13; 26:41; Mk. 13:35, 37; 14:38; Acts 
20:31; 1 Cor. 16:13; Col. 4:2; 1 Thess. 5:6, 10; 1 Pet. 5:8; Rev. 3:2f.; 16:15. 

On népho (be sober) — Drunken, Sober. C. Brown 

| dypunvéo | ayponvéw (agrypned), keep oneself awake, be awake, 
YP keep watch, guard, care; aypuzvia (agrypnia), wakeful- 


CL & OT agrypneo is found from Theognis onwards, in papyri, Philo and the LXX 

where it occurs 11 times (chiefly for Sagad, watch), e.g. Job 21:32; Pss. 101(102): 
7; 126(127):1. The noun agrypnia occurs in the LXX only in the Apoc. (10 times), 
e.g. Sir. 34(31):1 f., 20. 

NT Jesus charged his disciples to be on the alert (Mk. 13:33; Lk. 21:36). A similar 

charge is repeated in Eph. 6:18 at the climax of the discourse on the Christian’s 
armour. In Heb. 13:17 obedience to leaders is urged “for they are keeping watch 
over your souls, as men who will have to give account.’ The noun occurs only in 
the plur. in 2 Cor.6:5 and 11:27 of Paul’s “watching”’ or “sleepless nights’ endured 
for the sake of the church. C. Brown 
—> Command, — Law, — Teach 

(a). Arndt, 13 f., 166, 822 f., 875 f.; G. Bertram, phylassé etc., TDNT IX 236-44; H. Riesenfeld, 
tered etc., TDNT VIII 140-51. 

(b). G. Eichholz, ‘“Bewahren und Bewahren des Evangeliums’’, in H. Gollwitzer and T. Traub, 
eds., Héren und Handeln. Festschrift fiir Ernst Wolf zu seinem 60. Geburtstag, 1962. 

Guilt, Cause, Convict, Blame 

Whereas — sin is a general word for doing wrong in the sight of God, guilt is a 
legal and judicial term which implies criminal responsibility in the eyes of a court 
of law, whether that court is human or divine. This is illustrated by the adj. enochos, 
a legal term used to indicate that a person accused before a court is guilty. aitia 
denotes the ground of the charge. On the other hand, the meaning of the group of 
words connected with elencho extends well beyond the legal sphere. In the OT and 
the NT the concept of guilt is personalized and radicalized through its association 
with Yahweh or the Father of Jesus Christ. — Righteousness; — Forgiveness; 
—> Reconciliation. 

aitia (aitia), ground, cause, reason, charge; aitioc 
(aitios), responsible, guilty; aiti@pa (aitioma), charge; 
avanoAoyntoc (anapologétos), inexcusable; avaitiog (anaitios), innocent; 
Gpeuntoc (amemptos), blameless; avéyKAntos (anenklétos), blameless, irreproach- 

CL aitia means the ground or motive of a thought or action; in a causal sense the 
origin, occasion, of a thing, event or phenomenon. In Gk. philosophy the word 
occurs for the first time in accounts of the thought of Anaximander (middle of the 




6th century B.c.). From the 5th century onwards (e.g. Aristotle) it becomes the 
established term for the origin, cause, of natural phenomena (cf. Aristot., Phys. 
194 b 16; Met. 983 a 26; F. Copleston, A History of Philosophy, U, 1946, 311-9). 

Nevertheless, aitia is only seldom used in a good or neutral sense (cf. Liddell- 
Scott, 44). Usually the word carries the sense of charge, accusation, blame (as in 
Aesch., Plato), indicating the responsibility and guilt which attaches to an act. 
Likewise aitiOma, a word not found before Acts, but occurring in classical Gk. 
from Aesch. in the form aitiama, means a charge against a wrongdoer. aitios means 
culpable, responsible. The compound adj. anapologétos is used in the same context 
to indicate the hopelessness of a case for the defence at law; it is found in the 2nd 
century B.c. (e.g. Polyb.), and means without excuse. 

oT 1. The LXX uses aitia consistently. The word occurs 21 times in addition to 3 

translations in secondary MSS. Of these 18 are in the Apocrypha without Heb. 
equivalent (except for Wis. 17:13); 1-4 Macc. account for 13 instances. Apart from 
4 Macc. 1:16, where the philosophical concept of causation dominates, every 
example of aitia in the LXX has to do with some event which belongs to the 
darker side of life: fighting (2 Macc. 4:42), idolatry (Wis. 14:27), death (Wis. 
18:18; 1 Macc. 9:10), sensual pleasure (Susanna 14, Theod.). As in classical Gk., 
the term is hardly ever used in a good sense, but rather as a technical term in 
irregular situations or in trials. 

2. The other OT examples confirm this. In Gen. 4:13 the Yahwist uses the term 
‘awon, iniquity, in the cry of Cain: “My punishment [LXX aitia] is too great.” 
The culpable act and the punishment as its inevitable consequence are for him 
causally related (cf. G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 266). Job 18:14 
contains an aphorism on the inescapable destiny of the wicked to be smitten by a 
fatal disease. Here the LXX translation differs from the Heb. text, using aitia in its 
description of death as a kind of majestic stroke of fate. Finally, Prov. 28:17 
concludes that “for reason of [Heb. ‘astiq] blood-guilt’’, i.e. murder, a person must 
go to the grave, wandering in insecurity. 

3. aitios is found only at 1 Sam. 22:22 (apart from 6 examples in the Apocrypha, 
where it means having become guilty). Here David declares that he “‘has occa- 
sioned the death” of certain priests. anapologétos and aitidma do not occur in the 

NT In the NT this group of words is not frequent: aitios and aitioma occur only 
once each (in Heb. and Acts), aitia 20 times (only in the Gospels, Acts and Heb.). 

1. Some texts use aitia in a purely causal sense (for this reason, therefore), 
stating the reason why something happens. Thus the woman with an issue of blood 
gave Jesus the reason why she had touched him (Lk. 8:47). Peter inquired the 
reason for the visit (Acts 10:21). Timothy’s mother and grandmother are a ground 
for a special reminder (2 Tim. 1:6). Similar uses are found in 2 Tim. 1:12; Tit. 1:4; 
Heb. 2:11. The noun aitios is used in Heb. 5:9 in a positive sense of Christ as the 
‘source’ (RSV) of eternal salvation for all who obey him. 

2. In a second group of passages aitia is found in connection with legal charges 
and accusations brought against someone. At Matt. 19:3 the Pharisees asked 
whether — divorce is lawful ‘‘for every cause’ as though it were the inevitable 
consequence of such causes, whereas Jesus’ answer makes possible a new beginning 



for the disordered marriage. In v. 10, however, aitia means a case. Possibly there 
is an allusion here to a concurrent discussion on the connection between marriage 
and discipleship which presented a choice between a wife and the Lord. Acts 22:24; 
23:28; 25:18, 27 refer to the trials of Paul. In each case the passage is concerned 
to bring to light the ground of the charges brought against Paul, or to show that 
they cannot be established. Acts 26:7 uses for such unprovable allegations the noun 
aitioma, charge (here only in the NT). aition is used in a similar sense in the story 
of the disturbance led by Demetrius (Acts 19:40): there is danger that a charge will 
be laid because of this disorder for which no satisfactory explanation or reason can 
be given. 

3. A third group has to do with the occasion for a death sentence. 

(a) The inscription on the cross specified the charge on which Jesus was con- 
demned to death, the “cause” of death (Matt. 27:37; Mk. 15:26). This indicated 
to the onlooker that the execution was inevitable because of Jesus’ claim to king- 
ship. The Gospels, however, testify to a deeper necessity than the immediate 
human factors, for it sprang from the purpose of God (— Necessity, art. dei). In 
Acts 13:28 this “‘cause’’ of death is mentioned again in a speech of Paul, and 
described as unjustified in terms of human justice. 

(b) In the report of the trial before Pilate into which are interwoven many legal 
ideas Pilate pronounces his repeated conclusion that he can find no guilt in Jesus 
deserving death (in Jn. 18:38; 19:4, 6, aitia; in Lk. 23:4, 14, 22, aition). Hence in 
the Gospel accounts the demand of the crowd for the death of the innocent one is 
all the more culpable (— Cross, art. stauros, NT 1). In a similar sense, cf. the use of 
—> enochos, guilty. (On the trial of Jesus see E. Bammel, ed., The Trial of Jesus, 
1970; J. Blinzler, The Trial of Jesus, 1959; D. R. Catchpole, The Trial of Jesus, 1971.) 

(c) Acts 28:18 mentions the charge made against Paul of committing a capital 
crime. Since, however, there was insufficient ground (aitia) for the accusation, the 
Romans wished to save him from unjust condemnation to death. 

4. The words of this group are used in the OT and NT to indicate the responsi- 
bility of a man for his action, together with the resultant consequences. The same 
applies to anapologétos which occurs twice in Paul’s letter to the Romans and means 
the state of being without excuse in a legal sense. In the light of eschatology, the 
ungodly have no possibility of being excused. They stand under God’s destroying 
wrath (— Anger; Rom. 1:20). No man is able, under any circumstances, to make 
an excuse to God (Rom. 2:1). Everyone, whether Jew or Gentile, is deservingly 
subject to death, and therefore, as the argument of Rom. 2 continues, man is 
totally dependent on God’s free — grace and goodness in Jesus Christ. He took 
our sentence of death on himself and by this means has truly ‘‘excused”’ us. The 
theological emphasis given to the theme that Christ “‘must’’ suffer in this way is a 
logical counterpart to the ideas associated with this group of words. _F.. Thiele 

5. The adj. anaitios, innocent, occurs in Acts 16:37 and Matt. 12:5, 7. amemptos 
means blameless, of the Mosaic covenant (Heb. 8:7) and the heart (1 Thess. 3:13), 
otherwise only of persons (Phil. 3:6 [cf. Gen. 17:1]; 2:15 [cf. Job 1:1]; Lk. 1:7). 
The adv. amemptos occurs at 1 Thess. 2:10; 3:13 v./.; 5:23. Both adj. and adv. are 
connected with memphomai, find fault with, blame (Mk. 7:2 v./.; Rom. 9:19; Heb. 
8:8; cf. Arndt, 44, 503). anenklétos means blameless, irreproachable, of Christians 



who will be presented blameless by Christ on the day of the Lord (1 Cor. 1:8; cf. 
Col. 1:22). A blameless life is also required of Christian leaders in the present 
(1 Tim. 3:10; Tit. 1:6 f.). C. Brown 

[ayo éléyyw (elenchd), bring to light, expose, set forth, 
convict, convince, punish, discipline; €Aeyyoc (elenchos), 
proof, evidence, conviction, reproof, correction; éAeyydc (elegmos), conviction, 
reproof, punishment; &Aeyéic (elenxis), conviction, rebuke, reproof. 

cL 1. elencho is found from Homer onwards (e.g. J/. 9, 552; Od. 21, 424), probably 
originally (like the noun elenchos, reproach) in the sense of blame, insult; then 
in the sense of test, examine, enquire into a matter (cf. TDNT II, 473 n. 2). In Plato 
(Soph. 242b; Grg. 470c; Phdr. 273b, etc.) and Aristotle (Soph.El. 170* 24; Eth.Nic. 
1146? 23), elenchd is used of the logical exposition of the facts of a matter for the 
purpose of refuting the (usually sophistical) argument of an opponent. Thus the 
word developed its principal meaning of convince, refute (e.g. Democ., Frag. 60, 
222; Zeno, Frag. 41). In Stoicism the concept was transferred from the intellectual 
argument to the application of philosophical ethics. Epictetus is concerned with 
correcting the practical principles of living (Dissertationes 1, 26, 17; 2, 1, 32; 2, 
14, 20; 2, 26, 4; 3, 9, 13; 3, 23, 33 and often). Philo (Spec. Leg. 3, 54; 4, 6, 
40 and often) and Josephus (War 7, 330, 447 and often) spoke of the correction 
which men receive from their own consciences, the Logos, the truth, or from God. 
The idea of correction finally appears again in Hellenistic and Jewish literature in 
contexts which produce the meaning, to accuse, convict (Appian, Bella Civilia 5, 28; 
Diod. Sic. 13, 90, 4); and elenché acquired a sense which brought it near to paideud, 
or paideia, the basic concept of Gk. education and learning (—> Teach, art. paideuo). 
2. The noun elenchos, current from Pindar onwards, has a similar variety of 
meanings. It means: (a) proof (Demosthenes 4, 15; Plato, Grg. 47le; especially 
Aristot., Soph.El. 1, 165? 2); (b) conviction BGU 1138, 13; Epigrammata Graeca 
ex lapidibus conlecta, 1878, 814; (c) correction, reproof, censure (Philo, Rev. Div. 
Her. 76). The nouns elegmos and elenxis, common in the LXX and the NT, are 
found chiefly in the Hellenistic period, and consequently have as a rule the meaning 
of conviction or correction. 

oT In the LXX elencho is used in the great majority of cases to render the hiph. of 

yakah: to bring to account, to correct. elenchos generally represents the corres- 
ponding noun ¢ékahat, rebuke, correction. It is worthy of note that the words of 
this group are found in this sense mainly in the later books of the OT (Job, Pss., 
Prov.), and in the Apocrypha (Wis., Sir.). elegmos is used in Isa. 37:3 and 50:2 with 
the meaning of rebuke, reproach, disgrace. At Num. 5:18 f., 23 f., 27 the LXX 
translates the “water of bitterness’? used in the ordeal by the difficult phrase hydor 
tou elegmou, water of conviction. elenxis occurs only at Job 21:4; 23:2, where it 
renders the Heb. siah, concern, complaint. 

1. The historical books occasionally use elenché in secular contexts: because of a 
dispute about a well, Abraham complained to Abimelech, king of Gerar (Gen. 21: 
25); in the quarrel between Jacob and Laban, the kinsmen were to judge (Gen. 


31:37) etc. In these cases elencho refers to the clarification of a practical point at 
dispute, not an intellectual question (see above, CL 1). 

2. In prophetic proclamation the vb. has a legal character, as is shown from its 
use alongside the terms righteousness and judgment. The task of the priests to 
pronounce judgment and give advice is clearly presupposed (Hos. 4:4; Ezek. 3:26; 
cf. Amos 5:10; Isa. 29:21; Mal. 2:7). In a negative sense, the prophetic message 
of judgment spoke of reproof (Jer. 2:19) and the day of punishment (Hos. 5:9) 
which Yahweh will bring upon his rebellious people. Positively, it proclaimed 
salvation in terms of justice for the poor (Isa. 11:3 f.) and the helpful healing 
instruction which Yahweh will give to the nations (Isa. 2:4; Mic. 4:3). 

3. This group of words comes into its own in the Wisdom Literature, chiefly 
in the sense of correction and punishment. On the one hand, the Psalmist prays for 
preservation from divine punishment (Ps. 6:1); on the other the correction which 
comes from Yahweh, or from just men, is regarded as a help and benefit (Ps. 141:5; 
Job 5:17). This thought is developed particularly in proverbial wisdom. While 
the ungodly neither accepts nor deserves correction, the wise man is grateful for 
it, for he recognizes in it the love of Yahweh (Prov. 9:7 f.; 3:11 f.; 29:15). As 
may be seen from the repeated parallel use of elenchd and paideud (in Prov. 3:12, 
Aquila and Symmachus replace elenchei with paideuei; 15:12; Sir. 18:13), or 
elenchos and paideia (Prov. 6:23), the use of the words of this group in the Wisdom 
Literature comes close to the Stoic ideal of education and character training (cf. 
on this G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, I, 1962, 418-59). The godly man is 
trained by correction and discipline to follow the right path in life (Prov. 6:23; 
5:12 f.; 19:25; Sir. 18:13). 

4. On grounds of the exhortation in Lev. 19:17, “You shall reason with your 
neighbour’’, correction played an important part in Judaism both as a command- 
ment to love one’s neighbour, and as a task which earns merit (Sifra Lev. 19:17; 
Sanh. 21b; Pes. K. 25, 163 b; cf. SB I 787 ff.). It has a special importance in the 
Qumran texts. He who observes his brother transgressing the law, must censure 
him, at first before witnesses (CD 7:2). If this correction achieves nothing, the 
case must be brought before the whole community which then proceeds to punish 
the sinner (1QS 3:6). 

NT The words of this group are found in the NT in the gospels (especially Jn.), 

and also in the later epistles (especially the Pastorals). The majority of examples 
occur in the later writings. Mk. does not use these words and the early example in 
Paul is at 1 Cor. 14:24. 

1. In the Gospel of John, elenchdé means, as in the prophetic warnings of judg- 
ment, to reveal and convict of sin. It is the negative, reverse side of God’s saving 
work of revelation (Jn. 3:20; 16:8; cf. also Eph. 5:13; Jude 15). The thing revealed 
is expressed by means of peri with the gen. (Jn. 8:46, sin; 16:8 ff., sin, righteous- 
ness and judgment; cf. Lk. 3:19, an illegitimate marriage; Jude 15, deeds of ungod- 

2. elencho is found particularly frequently in hortatory passages (e.g. Eph. 5:13). 
The Pastoral Epistles assign to the leader of the community the task of rebuking 
church members (1 Tim. 5:20; 2 Tim. 4:2; Tit. 2:15) and of convicting opponents 
of their error (Tit. 1:9, 13). The corresponding activity is called elegmos in 2 Tim. 



3:16, and elenxis in 2 Pet. 2:16. In this connection mention should also be made of 
the instructions about church order in Matt. 18:15 ff., where it is said that erring 
church members should first be told privately of their fault, then in the presence 
of several witnesses and, if this be fruitless, the matter should be laid before the 
whole church (cf. the corresponding procedure at Qumran, see above OT, 4). 

3. It may be seen from the citation of Prov. 3:11 f. at Heb. 12:5 and Rev. 3:19, 
that the Hellenistic concept of education (see above CL, 1; OT, 3) has also found its 
way into the NT. In both cases elencho and paideuoé are used in parallel. 

4. The interpretation of elenchos in Heb. 11:1 presents difficulties. Its meaning 
here can be deduced only from its cofitext in the definition of faith given in this 
chapter. The sentence falls into two parts. The second half is a parallelism, to be 
compared with the first part: elenchos strengthens hypostasis, and pragmata ou 
blepomena, things not seen, explains elpizomena, things hoped for. The concepts 
are unmistakably Hellenistic in character. The purpose of the statement is not so 
much to encourage subjective assurance of faith, as if faith could give the status of 
reality to what lies in the future. It is rather to secure a “‘firm link with objectivity” 
(O. Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrder, KEK 13, 19661", 373). Accordingly, elenchos 
should be interpreted neither subjectively, as if it denoted absence of doubt, nor 
in a hortatory sense, as if it meant correction, nor yet in an intellectual sense, mean- 
ing evidence. Rather it should be understood in its context in the theology of Heb. 
in a Strictly theological sense, as referring to conviction, about the power of the 
future world promised by God which is here described in the language of secular 
Gk. as “things not seen’ (on the whole subject see O. Michel, op. cit., 372 ff.; > 
Faith, art. pistis NT 4; Form, art. hypostasis NT 2). Heb. 11:1 would then mean: 
“But faith is the pledge of things hoped for, the conviction of things we cannot see.” 

H.-G. Link 

ae Evo xoc (enochos), guilty, subject to, liable to, or deserving 
ie Soh a thing or penalty; évéyw (enecho), hold fast, be subject 

cL Gk. literature has the adj. enochos, derived from enecho (Pindar), meaning 

to hold fast; pass., to be held fast, be subject to (Plato, Xenophon, Isocrates). 
It is frequently used as a technical legal term: a person is made liable, or subject 
to a certain penalty under the law. The forum (lawcourt, laws, men or gods) before 
which he is guilty or liable is usually referred to in the dative (e.g. Xen., Memora- 
bilia 1, 2, 64). Frequently enochos is also used with the gen. of the crime (Plato, 
Laws 2, 914e) or of the punishment. 

OT The LXX has enochos 21 times in the same sense as secular Gk. The term is used 

in the LXX chiefly to refer to a person who is condemned to — death because 
of an action incurring blood-guilt. enochos serves to translate Heb. formulae 
expressing the death penalty (e.g. Gen. 26:11; Exod. 22:2; Lev. 20:9-27, in cases 
of sodomy, incest, homosexuality, soothsaying, etc. “their blood be upon them’’; 
Num. 35:27; Deut. 19:10; Jos. 2:19, the blood-oath taken by the spies before 
Rahab). In Isa. 54:17 (LXX) enochos is used of those who incur guilt by engaging 
in a legal dispute with Israel. 



NT The 10 NT examples of enochos follow the same pattern. 

1. Matt. 5:21 f. Here, in a threefold progression, the respective courts before 
which a lawbreaker is arraigned are referred to in the dative: krisis, local court; 
synedrion, supreme national court; gehenna, — hell (the place of punishment is 
named at once in the acc. instead of the supreme judge). The lesser or greater 
degree of guilt is reflected in the nature of the court and the severity of the punish- 
ment involved (cf. A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus, 1963®, 165-71; and also 
W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount, 1964, 236 ff.; D. Hill, The 
Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 120 ff.; >» Curse, art. rhaka; >» Wisdom, Folly, art. 

2. Jas. 2:10 uses enochos of the lawbreaker. Every single sin, however insignifi- 
cant it may appear to be, makes the doer “totally guilty’, and therefore liable to 
— judgment. | 

3. It is in accordance with OT usages when, in the Matthean and Marcan ac- 
counts of the trial of Jesus, the death sentence is pronounced using the term 
enochos. The high priest regards the evidence of blasphemy (— Revile) as conclu- 
sive in Jesus’ case, and declares him “guilty of death’? (enochos thanatou estin, 
Matt. 26:66; cf. Mk. 14:64). The two other occurrences of enochos likewise have a 
legal character. 

(a) Heb. 2:15 explains the significance of the death of Jesus, which frees those 
who were “condemned” to be slaves (i.e. of the devil and of death). 

(b) 1 Cor. 11:27 concludes that he who takes the bread and wine unworthily 
becomes “guilty” of the body and blood of the Lord present in them. The Lord 
gave himself up to death for the sake of the brethren; the opposite action, loveless 
behaviour towards one’s neighbour (cf. Matt. 5:21 f.), results in guilt. Here too the 
term enochos is used of a matter of life and death. 

4. Similarly Mk. 3:29 uses enochos with a gen. of the penalty; he who blas- 
phemes against the — Holy Spirit will be guilty of an “eternal sin” (— Revile, art. 

blasphémeo). F. Thiele 
| wee GUEUMTOG (amemptos), blameless; auéuntws (amemptos), 
| auepntos | blamelessly; jpéupoualt (memphomai), find fault; 

LénwiL“olpoc (mempsimoiros), fault-finding; wéuwic (mempsis), reason for com- 

CL The word amemptos is used most frequently in secular Gk. in the sense of 

blameless, without reproach. It may be used of persons (Euripides, Demosthenes) 
and things (Xenophon, Plutarch), in the latter case suggesting perfection. On 
occasion amemptos was used with the connotation “‘content’’, in the sense that one 
is not characterized by blaming (Xenophon, Cyril). The word occurs in Wis. 10:5, 
15; 18:21 in the sense of moral purity. 

The vb. memphomai means to blame, to find fault with. With the dat. and acc. 
of the person it may connote the idea of regarding someone as blameworthy 

The adj. mempsimoiros is used in secular Gk. to characterize one who was apt 
to find fault (Isocrates, Lucian), while mempsis indicates the ground of, or reason 



for, complaint or blame (Aeschylus). It is used in Wis. 13:6 of those who failed to 
see God behind his created works. ‘‘For these men there is but small blame.” 

oT In the LXX amemptos occurs as the translation of several Heb. words meaning 

clean, pure (bar, zakah, zakak, hap), perfect, complete (tam, tamim, tahér, 
nagi), to be righteous (sddaq), and possibly straight, upright (yasar). The adj. 
amemptos occurs in parallelism with katharos in Job 11:4 to describe the blame- 
lessness of Job’s character. In this instance it stands for the Heb. bar (pure). The 
vb. zakah is translated by amemptos in Job 15:14in the LXX. In this verse amemptos 
occurs in parallelism with dikaios (righteous). In Job 33:9 the Heb. Hap is translated 
by amemptos and qualified by the phrase “I have not transgressed.” In Job 2:3 it is 
difficult to ascertain whether amemptos stands for yasar or tam. In Job 1:8 the 
Heb. tam is translated by amemptos in a verse describing Job’s blamelessness, and 
in Job 22:3 it stands for the Heb. sddaq (be righteous). In most instances the word 
amemptos connotes moral purity. It was applied also, however, to the heavenly 
bodies (Job 15:15; 25:5) and Job’s doctrine (Job 11:4). The adv. amemptos occurs 
in Est. 3:13 inthe sense of honourable or well intentioned, with regard to Artaxerxes’ 
efforts to unify his empire. 

In Job 33:10 mempsis occurs as the translation of the Heb. t*ni’ah (opposition, 
or occasion for opposition). It is used in parallelism with the phrase “he counts 
me as his enemy.” The sense is that of reason for complaint. In Job 39:7 the word 
mempsis occurs as the translation of t°siu‘ah (shout). Since it describes the shouts of a 
driver to the wild donkey, it may connote the idea of scolding, hence censure. In 
Job 15:15(A); 33:23; and Wis. 13:6 the word connotes the concept of fault or 

NT The word amemptos occurs in the NT in the sense of moral purity in Lk. 1:6, 

where it is used in the sense of blamelessness with regard to the commandments 
of the Lord. In Phil. 3:6 Paul uses the word to describe his standing with regard 
to the law. The connotation of the word in these instances is that the individual 
is not guilty of disobedience to the laws of God, hence there is no blameworthiness 
nor susceptibility to charge as far as the law is concerned. 

The word is used in a somewhat similar sense in Phil. 2:15 to describe the moral 
purity of those believers who do not grumble or question. They are further des- 
cribed as without blemish (amdmos). In 1 Thess. 3:13 Paul expresses the desire that 
the Thessalonian Christians may be “‘blameless in holiness” at the parousia (cf. 
Matt. 25:34-40; — Present, art. parousia). This blamelessness is the result of their 
abounding in love one for another (v. 12). 

The adv. amemptos occurs in 1 Thess. 2:10 and 5:23. In the former verse it 
describes the activity of Paul among the Thessalonians in regard to there being 
no cause for censure or blame on his part. In the latter verse Paul uses the word of 
the effect of the total work of sanctification at the parousia. 

The verb memphomai is attested in Rom. 9:19 and Heb. 8:8 as well as the. TR 
of Mark 7:2. In each instance the basic connotation of blame or find fault obtains. 

In the TR of Mark 7:2 the word is used of the reaction of the Pharisees to 
some of Jesus’ disciples who were eating with unwashed hands. The implication 
is that the Pharisees found the disciples open to blame, because they were guilty of 
violating the Jewish tradition. (— Baptism, art. niptd; — Hand, art. cheir.) 



In Rom. 9:19 the word is used by Paul in a rhetorical question that occurs in an 
exposition of the sovereignty of God: “‘Why does he yet find fault ?”’ In the light of 
God’s sovereign inexorable purposes one may raise the question of human re- 
sponsibility. The word memphomai clearly connotes “guilt”? or blameworthiness 
in this context for Paul’s argument is that God’s sovereignty does not free sinful 
men of fault or guilt before God. 

The word amemptos is applied to the first covenant in Heb. 8:7 in a negative 
sense. If the first covenant had been faultless there would have been no need for 

In Heb. 8:8 memphomai occurs with the dative of the person in a sense similar 
to the above but in contrast to amemptos (v. 7). The Sinaitic covenant has been 
described as not being faultless (amemptos). A fault of the old covenant is found in 
the people to whom it was given (vv. 8, 9) who did not keep it, for “‘he finds fault 
[memphomenos] with them’”’ (v. 8). The context does not seem to indicate that the 
intrinsic nature of the commandments was changed, but rather the mode of recep- 
tion of the covenant (vv. 8-12, quoting Jer. 31:31-34). 

The word memphomai then connotes the act of blaming or finding fault, i.e. to 
regard an individual or object as having fault or blame. 

The word mempsimoiros (lit. finding fault with one’s lot [moira]) occurs only 
once in the NT in Jude 16 in the sense of grumbler, malcontent. 7. McComiskey 
—> Cross, — Judgement, — Punishment, —- Redemption, — Sin 

(a). F. Biichsel, elenchd etc., TDNT II 473-76; W. Grundmann, memphomai etc., TDNT IV 571-4; 
H. Hanse, echo etc., TDNT II 828 (on enechd); R. S. Moxon, The Doctrine of Sin, 1922; C. Ryder 
Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Sin, 1953; F. R. Tennant, The Concept of Sin, 1912; H. Thielicke, 
Theological Ethics, I, 1968, IJ, 1969 (see indexes); N. P. Williams, The Ideas of the Fall and Original 
Sin, 1929. On the psychological and pastoral aspects of guilt see D. Belgum, Guilt: Where Religion 
and Psychology Meet, 1963; H. McKeating, Living with Guilt, 1970; J. G. McKenzie, Guilt: Its 
Meaning and Significance, 1962; K. Rahner, “Guilt and its Remission: The Borderland between 
Theology and Psychotherapy’’, Theological Investigations, \1, 1963, 265-82; and ‘‘Does Tradi-: 
tional Theology Represent Guilt as Innocuous as a Factor in Human Life?’’, Theological Investi- 
gations, XIII, 1975, 133-51; P. Tournier, Guilt and Grace: A Psychological Study, 1962; A. Uleyn, 
The Recognition of Guilt: A Study in Pastoral Psychology, 1969. 

(b). G. Bally, ““Schuld und Existenz”, Wege zum Menschen, 9, 1960, 305 ff.; M. Boss, Lebensangst, 
Schuldgefiihle und psychotherapeutische Befreiung, 19652; M. Buber, ‘‘Schuld und Schuldgefiihle’’, 
in A. Sborowitz, ed., Der leidende Mensch, 1960, 106 ff.; G. Condrau, “Angst and Schuld im 
menschlichen Dasein’, Wege zum Menschen 3, 1966, 65 ff.; H. Dombois, ed., Die weltliche 
Strafe in der evangelischen Theologie, 1959; P. Guilluy, ed., La Culpabilité Fondamentale: Péché 
Originel et Anthropologie Moderne, 1975; H. Harsch, Das Schuldproblem in Theologie und 
Tiefenpsychologie, 1964; A. Koberle, ““Das Schuldproblem in theologischer und tiefenpsycholo- 
gischer Sicht”’, in W. Bitter, ed., Psychotherapie und Seelsorge, 1952, 154 ff.; K. Koch, “‘Stinde 
und Schuld”’, RGG® VI 476 ff.; F. Leist, “Die Grenzen zwischen Tiefenpsychologie und Seel- 
sorge’’, in W. Bitter, op. cit., 163 ff.; H. Lindinger, ‘“‘Die Erfahrung von Schuld und Tod beim 
heutigen Menschen’, Wege zum Menschen 4, 1967, 121 ff.; R. Pfisterer, “‘Die Schuld — Schande 
oder Chance?’’, Wege zum Menschen 7/8, 1962, 240 ff.; R. Schneider, Der Mensch vor dem 
Gericht der Geschichte, 1946; E. Schweizer, “‘Schuld und Tod in biblischer Sicht’’, ZNW 27, 1956, 
728 ff.; G. Suttinger, ““Der schuldiger Tater als psychologisches Problem’’, Wege zum Menschen 
7/8, 1962, 225 ff. 


Hand, Right Hand, Left Hand, Laying on of Hands 

The uses of the word cheir, hand, are many and various. It can mean fig. side, 
power, handwriting or army. In Biblical usage particular importance is attached to 
the use of cheir as part for the whole, as a substitute for a person and his activity 
and dealings. Thus the hand of God stands for his majesty and supreme power in 
the affairs of men. On the other hand, Jesus and his disciples were delivered into 
the hands of men. The thought here is of surrender to the power and mercy of their 
enemies (— Judgment, art. paradidomi). Related to this use of cheir is the notion 
of the right hand, dexia (cheir). This expresses a person’s power and authority. To 
sit at the right hand (en dexia) signifies the possession of equal — power and dignity 
(— Glory, art. doxa). Finally, the laying on of hands plays a special part in the 
NT in commissioning and empowering. This is dealt with in the art. on epitithémi 
tas cheiras. 

| O&CIG | d&&10¢ (dexios), right; degid (dexia), right hand. 

CL dexios which is related to Latin dexter means right. It is possible that there is a 

connection with dechomai, to receive; dexios would then mean acceptable. 
Attested from Homer on, it means: (a) right (opposite to left); hé dexia cheir, the 
right hand, then the right side in general; (b) skilful (opposite to clumsy); (c) lucky. 
The plur. dexiai can mean contract, because of the handshake which sealed it. The 
right hand symbolizes power, success, good fortune, loyalty. 

This also holds true in the NT. For the right hand in agreement see Gal. 2:9. The 
angel in the tomb was sitting on the right side (Mk. 16:5; cf. also Jn. 21:6). In 
the final judgment those who are chosen are summoned to the right hand of the 
Son of man (Matt. 25:31 ff.). 

oT The Heb. yamin is the only OT equivalent of dexios. God’s right hand is often 
spoken of symbolically, especially in the Pss. It provides support (Ps. 18:35, 
MT 18:36) and victory (Ps. 118:15). It even expresses the omnipresence of God 
which embraces men everywhere (Ps. 139:10). Benjamin, lit. son of the right hand, 
is interpreted as son of good fortune (Gen. 35:18). The place at a man’s right hand 
is important as a place of honour (1 Ki. 2:19; Ps. 45:9, MT 45:10; Zech. 3:1). 
Ps. 110:1 is particularly significant in the light of its use in the NT. The king of 
Israel, placed by Yahweh at his right hand, perhaps at his accession to the throne, 
is honoured as God’s co-regent, who by war and victory will overthrow the enemies 
of Israel, and thus of God. (For discussion of background see A. Weiser, The 
Psalms, 1952, 692-7; A. A. Anderson, The Book of Psalms, I, 1972, 768-72.) 



NT In the NT Ps. 110:1 plays an important role in connection with statements 

about the messiah. The verse is quoted or referred to indirectly 19 times, of 
which 7 are in the Synoptics, 3 in Acts, 3 in Paul, 5 in Heb. and | in Pet. It is only 
here that dexios has any theological significance. (It occurs altogether 54 times, 
most frequently in Matt.) 

1. Ps. 110:1 was probably interpreted messianically already in pre-NT times. At 
all events, Jesus expounded it in this sense in Mk. 12:35 ff. par. Matt. 22:41-6, 
Lk. 20:41-4. For Rab. Judaism the messiah was God’s eschatological, political 
co-regent who would establish a visible kingdom of God on earth. Jesus clearly 
rejected the political aspects of messiahship and was guarded in his attitude to the 
title of Son of David (— Son). But in the final days of his ministry he alluded to 
him as if to a third person. ([Ed.] The context in Matt. and Mk. is particularly 
significant, for Jesus’ question to the Pharisees about the Christ immediately 
follows the lawyer’s question to Jesus as to which is the great commandment. The 
reply that Jesus gave was: ‘“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, 
and with all your soul, and with all your mind” [ Matt. 22:37]. He then added the 
second great commandment and went on to ask, referring to Ps. 110:1: ““How is 
it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord?” [Matt. 22:37]. The 
implication is that as well as the — Lord whom men are commanded to serve and 
worship with their whole being there is another Lord who has the same title and 
sits at the Lord’s right hand. The question is put hypothetically, but it also has 
bearing on who Jesus is and what is his divinely appointed rdéle. The hearers were 
unable to give an answer. In the verses that follow Jesus went on to pronounce 
judgment on the scribes and Pharisees whose teaching and practice had caused them 
to miss the significance of what God is saying and doing.) 

At his trial (Mk. 14:62 par. Matt. 26:64, Lk. 22:69), although unarmed and 
ridiculed, Jesus solemnly declared that he was “‘the Son of man” who will sit ‘“‘at the 
right hand of Power’’ (Dan. 7:13 combined with Ps. 110:1). With this unheard-of 
claim he demanded recognition that God exercises his power in a way differing 
radically from that of the world. God works under and indeed by means of con- 
ditions of the greatest human powerlessness. The one who will come in judgment at 
the right hand of God’s throne (— Power, art. thronos) is the — Lamb who was 
slain (Rev. 5:6). 

2. This is the only sense in which the primitive church could speak of Jesus 
being seated at God’s right hand. This is pictured in various ways. Rom. 8:34 
lays more emphasis upon the priestly function of the heavenly intercessor. Col. 3:1 
stresses the fact that Christ is now hidden in the divine world above. On the other 
hand, Eph. 1:20 and | Pet. 3:22 underline the original meaning of his co-regency. 
For Heb. especially Jesus’ session at God’s right hand (“‘the point in what we are 
saying’ [8:1]) is not the exercise of worldly power but the reign of the One who has 
offered himself as a sacrifice and has therefore been exalted above all angels (1:3, 
13). This sacrifice of himself which has led to his exaltation is the unchangeable 
source of all the blessings of salvation towards which the tired Christian com- 
munity must hasten (12:2). However, his session at God’s right hand does not 
yet mean the immediate defeat of all his enemies. This is reserved for the escha- 
tological consummation (10:12; cf. 1 Cor. 15:25). 

3. A polemical motive is added in Acts. The proclamation of Jesus’ session at 



God’s right hand (2:34) and his exaltation to that position (2:33; 5:31) becomes a 
word of judgment upon the Jews and their pride in the Law. The one they killed is 
the messiah! Stephen saw him standing at God’s right hand (7:55f.), “as if 
to meet Stephen” (J. A. Bengel, Gnomon of the New Testament, 1873, II, 583). That 
Jesus is standing at God’s right hand indicates that he has the role of witness for 
the defence; he appears before God as a witness on behalf of his own witnesses on 
earth. The witness stands, the judge sits! C. Blendinger 

| GPIOTEPOG, EVWOVVLLOG | apiotepoc (aristeros), left; edsavvploc (eudnymos), left. 

OT The Heb. s°mo’/ (e.g. Gen. 15:15; 24:9) is normally translated by aristeros. 

But eudnymos is also used. Significance is attached to which hand Jacob used 
in blessing in Gen. 48:14. Both the right and left hands are mentioned in Jdg. 16:29 
but without any theological significance. But the left is a symbol for folly and ill 
fortune in Eccles. 10:2. 

NT Paul speaks of having “‘weapons of righteousness for the right hand and the 
left”? (2 Cor. 6:7) in his defence of his ministry. The expression ex arister6n is 
used by James and John who wanted the chief places for themselves on the right 
and left hands of Jesus (Mk. 10:37). By contrast Lk. 23:33 mentions the two 
malefactors crucified on the right and left hand of Jesus. In all these instances 
aristeros has a good or at least neutral sense. eudnymos is used in the same contexts 
in Mk. 10:40 and 15:27; cf. Matt. 20:21, 23; 27:38. It has a neutral sense in 
Acts 21:3 and Rev. 10:2. But it has a pejorative sense in Matt. 25:33, 41 in the 
parable of the sheep and the goats which is in keeping with its lit. meaning. For 
euonymos means lit. of good name or omen, well-named, thus avoiding the ill- 
omen attaching to the left. It thus became a euphemism for the left (cf. the secular 
background in Liddell-Scott, 740, 240). C. Brown 

-————————————— xyeip (cheir), hand; nvyyy (pygmé), fist; daKtvdAoc 

| ein | (daktylos), finger. 

CL cheir is found from Mycenaean Greek (Linear B) on. The hand, the member of 
the human — body that a man puts to the most active use, serves him both in 

his work and in defence of himself. His strength and energy are made effective 

through his hands. Therefore the hand is particularly important. 

In secular Gk. the plur. cheires and dynameis (power(s)) can be used synony- 
mously. But the hand does not stand simply as a symbol of power. When it is 
linked with a personal name, it stands as a substitute for the person himself in 
action. cheir means handwriting in Hyperides (4th cent. B.c.) and Philodemus (lst 
cent. B.c.), cf. the related usage in the formula té emé cheiri, with my own hand 
(1 Cor. 16:21; Gal. 6:11). 

oT 1. The OT speaks of a person’s activity as the work of his hand. The hand 
(Heb. yad) is a symbol of human — power. Thus, to fall into someone’s hand 
means to come into their power (Gen. 32:11, MT 32:12; Jdg. 2:14; Jer. 27:6 f.). In 



2 Sam. 18:18 cheir (corresponding to the Heb. yad) means a mark or monument 
(cf. Isa. 56:5). cheir is likewise a symbol for divine omnipotence (2 Chr. 20:6; Ps. 
89:21 [MT 89:22]). God’s hand created heaven and earth and with his hand he 
controls them (Isa. 48:13). For Israel God’s hand means salvation and release; 
but for their enemies, destruction and ruin (Exod. 7:4; 9:3; 1 Sam. 7:13). The 
hand of the Lord is used in the same way to express God’s righteous punishment 
(1 Sam. 5:6, 11), but also his loving care (Ezr. 7:6; Job 5:18; Ps. 145:16; Isa. 
49:16) and his divine protection (Isa. 51:16). 

2. Both in figurative language about God and with reference to men the two 
hands do not have equal status. By comparison with the left hand a higher value is 
placed upon the right, because it is the one that is active (Exod. 15:6, 12; Ps. 
118:15 f.; Isa. 41:13; cf. Matt. 5:30). There is an extraordinary richness about the 
use of the hand in sign and figurative language. It serves to express displeasure, 
passionate excitement (Num. 24:10), but also to express humble supplication (2 
Chr. 6:12 f.; Ps. 28:2), joy (Ps. 47:1 [47:2]) and sorrow (Jer. 2:37), scornful 
malicious joy (Ezek. 6:11), solemn oath (Gen. 14:22; 24:2, 9; 47:29; Ezr. 10:19) 
and loyal citizenship (Prov. 6:1 ff.; 22:26). The sign on the hand (Exod. 13:9, 16; 
Deut. 6:8; 11:18) is a permanent and picturesque way of expressing constant 
remembrance of God’s saving acts and of his commandments for his people. To 
fill someone’s hand means to install him to priestly office (Num. 3:3). Washing the 
hands serves not only to fulfil the commandments concerning purification (Exod. 
30:18 ff.), but also to signify an affirmation of innocence and a clear conscience 
(Deut. 21:6; Ps. 26:6; cf. Job 17:9; Ps. 24:4; Matt. 27:24). This richness of 
meaning which belongs to the concept hand in the OT lives on into Rab. Judaism 
and continues in the NT. 

NT The word cheir occurs 176 times in the NT with a few additional occurrences 

in variant readings. It appears most frequently in Luke’s writings (Lk. 26 
times; Acts 45), no doubt because of his preference for OT turns of phrase (espe- 
cially in Acts). 

1. cheir is often found, used literally, in the combination podes kai cheires, feet 
and hands (Matt. 18:8; 22:13; Lk. 24:39; Jn. 11:44; Acts 21:11). The phrase 
dia cheiros tinos (also plural), through someone, by someone (e.g. Mk. 6:2; Acts 
5:12; 7:25; 11:30) is a Semitism representing the Heb. b*ydd, by, with. Similarly, 
eis cheiras translates Heb. lidé, to, for. The hands can stand for a person (Acts 
17:25). cheir is used 25 times in connection with the laying on of hands (— epithesis 
ton cheiron). 

2. As in the OT, the hand of the Lord means the embodiment of divine power. 
It is also applied to Christ in Jn. 3:35; 10:28; 13:3. It works in creation (Acts 
7:50; Heb. 1:10) and in God’s plan of salvation (Acts 4:28; cheir in combination 
with boulé). It expresses his righteous punishment (Acts 13:11; Heb. 10:31), and 
also the special care (Lk. 1:66), security and protection (Lk. 23:46; Jn. 10:29) 
which God grants to all those who trust him. God’s hand indicates his wonder- 
working power with which he accompanies the apostolic proclamation of the 
gospel (Acts 4:30; 11:21) and is represented as operating “‘by the hand of an — 
angel’ (Acts 7:35). It also indicates God’s hidden wisdom with which he leads his 
people on earth through suffering (1 Pet. 5:6). Hand, finally, can be a periphrasis 



for a hostile power, into whose control a man is delivered (esp. Matt. 17:22 par. 
Mk. 9:31, Lk. 9:44, Matt. 26:45 par. Mk. 14:41; Acts 21:11), but from whose 
hand he can also be set free (Acts 12:11; 2 Cor. 11:33). 

3. cheir is frequently used in connection with the verb ekteino, to stretch out. 
Jesus commanded a sick man to stretch out his hand (Matt. 12:13 par. Mk. 3:5, 
Lk. 6:10). He stretched out his hand to — heal (Matt. 8:3 par. Mk. 1:41, Lk. 5:13; 
cf. Acts 4:30). Stretching out the hand can be an orator’s gesture (Acts 26:1) and 
a sign indicating the bystanders (Matt. 12:49). It can happen with hostile intent 
(Lk. 22:53) or refer indirectly to a disciple’s death by crucifixion (Jn. 21:18). 

F. Laubach 

The Jewish (though not OT) practice of ceremonially washing the hands before 
meals (Mk. 7:1—4) was condemned by Jesus as an instance of scrupulous obser- 
vance of an outward ordinance of man, practised at the expense of neglecting the 
word of God (wy. 6 ff.; cf. Matt. 15:8 ff.; Isa. 29:13) and failure to realize that 
evil comes from the heart (Mk. 7:14—23; cf. Matt. 15:10-20). Mk. 7:3 contains the 
word pygmé which the RSV deliberately omits on account of the uncertainty of its 
meaning. Although there are variant readings in some MSS, it is supported by the 
majority of early MSS. C. E. B. Cranfield suggests that the explanation is to be 
sought in the Jewish custom of different sorts of ritual washing. Dipping up to the 
wrist was less serious than plunging up to the wrist. pygmé is a dat. form of the 
noun meaning “‘fist’’. The expression in Mk. pygmé nipsontai may refer to the for- 
mer act, or perhaps to washing with a fistful of water. (Cf. The Gospel according to 
Saint Mark, 1959, 233; and for further suggestions P. R. Weis, ““A Note on pygmeé,” 
NTS 3, 1956-7, 233 ff.; — Baptism, Wash, art. nipto.) Pilate’s act of washing his 
hands before the crowd (Matt. 27:24) was a public gesture disclaiming responsibility. 
Although the crowds accepted responsibility for Jesus’ blood, the gesture was 
equally empty, for moral responsibility cannot be disposed of by outward gestures. 

The finger (daktylos [in the LXX chiefly for ’esba‘]) is mentioned in Matt. 23:4; 
Mk. 7:33; Lk. 11:46; 16:24; Jn. 8:6, 8; 20:25, 27. The expression “finger of 
God” (Lk. 11:20; cf. Exod. 8:19) is paralleled in Matt. 12:28 by — “Spirit of 
God.” “In all likelihood it is Jesus’ own phrase by which he defines his mission in 
terms of the Exodus. . . as he does elsewhere. See on 6:17—49; 9:10—17). The escha- 
tological presence of the Spirit is the presence of the kingdom. See on 10:1-20” 
(E. E. Ellis, The Gospel of Luke, 1966, 165). 

cheirotoned means to choose (originally elect by raising hands) (2 Cor. 8:19), 
and appoint (Acts 14:23). cheiropoiétos, made by human hands, underlines the 
distinction between God’s action and man’s (Mk. 14:58; Acts 7:78; 17:24; Eph. 
2:11; Heb. 9:11, 24). C. Brown 

EmitiOnul tac yeipac (epitithémi tas cheiras), to lay 
hands on; ézi@ecic tHv xElp@v (epithesis t6n cheiron), 
laying on of hands. 
CL epithesis (from Plato on) means: (a) laying on, application (of things); (b) 
setting upon, attack (only in the LXX, Aristeas, Philo and Josephus). The 
phrase epithesis tén cheiron, the laying on of hands, occurs only in Philo and the 
NT. On the other hand epitithémi tén cheira or tas cheiras, to lay the hand or hands 
on someone or something, also occurs in Gk. inscriptions and in the LXX. 



Miraculous healings, performed by means of the laying on of hands, are attri- 
buted in Hel. literature to Asclepius, Zeus and to other gods and wise men (—> 
Heal, art. iaomai; TDNT III, 196 ff.). 

oT 1. Even though the substantival combination epithesis ton cheiron does not 

occur in the LXX, it probably goes back to the corresponding verbal expres- 
sion, epitithémi tas cheiras (Heb. samak yadayim) in the LXX which has two basic 
associations in the LXX. Numerically speaking, by far the more important usage 
of this verbal expression in the LXX is the one which describes how the sacrificer 
laid his hand on the head of the sacrificial animal. The meaning of this action is 
seen most clearly in the ritual for the great Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), where the 
laying on of hands is not an act of blessing but is believed to be a real transfer- 
ence of guilt to the scapegoat. To drive out the goat meant to drive out sin itself. 
But in the case of the other forms of sacrifice which from the point of view of the 
history of religions are less primitive, it is to be observed that sacrifice and laying 
on of hands coincide (so in almost every chapter in Lev.). For to deny that foreign 
divinities have any power over the people of Israel meant that they now have to 
commit to Yahweh their evil and allow him to destroy it. 

2. Alongside this, though more rare, is the laying on of hands as an act of bless- 
ing (Genesis 48:18 ). It is no doubt closely related to the ritual of laying on of 
hands on the occasion of a man’s installation in an office (Num. 27:18, 23, and 
frequently in the Pent.). The laying on of hands means, therefore, if one compares 
the two very different acts of removal of sin and blessing, that there passes to the 
one on whom hands are laid the particular quality of the one who performs the act. 
He passes on his special blessing or burdens the scapegoat with the burden which he 
himself had carried. 

3. The two passages which took on the greatest significance for Rab. Judaism 
were those which dealt with Moses’ appointment of Joshua to be his successor 
(Num. 27:15 ff.; Deut. 34:9). In the former passage, by means of the laying on of 
hands Moses invested Joshua with his authority. In the latter he invested him with 
his spirit of wisdom. Rab. Judaism saw here the obligatory model and the origin 
of its own ordination practice, which was understood as the handing on of the 
spirit of Moses from the present teacher to the pupil (cf. TDNT VI 962; IX 429; 
SB I 807; SB II 648-55). 

NT In the majority of passages in which it occurs in the NT (altogether 40 times) 
epitithémi 1s connected with the laying on of hands. epithesis ton cheir6n only 
appears 4 times. 

1. The verbal expression epitithémi tas cheiras is used predominantly in the NT 
in connection with miracles of healing (Matt. 9:18; Mk. 5:23; 6:5; 7:32; 8:23; 
Lk. 13:13; Acts 28:8), performed by Jesus and the apostles as signs that the mes- 
sianic age had already dawned. The expression also appears in Matt. 19:13, 15 to 
denote a gesture of blessing the children who were brought to Jesus. As the par. 
in Mk. 10:16 shows, there is no thought of a magical means of blessing. The 
gesture of blessing symbolizes, rather, the gracious offer of a share in the kingdom 
of God made to those who are not of age, i.e. to such as approach God with the 
attitude of children. (— Child, art. pais NT 2.) 



Acts 8:17 ff.; 9:17; 19:6 belong in the context of the — baptism. The Holy 
—> Spirit is given to those who are baptized and have the apostles’ hands laid on 
them. This may be the idea behind | Tim. 5:22. But equally the laying on of hands 
here could be a gesture accompanying the readmission to fellowship of a penitent 
sinner or heretic. The possibility of ‘“‘ordination’”’ also cannot be excluded. Two 
passages take us directly into the sphere of Jewish ordination: Acts 6:6 where the 
seven Hellenists were appointed to serve in the daily distribution to their section 
of the community, and Acts 13:3 where Paul and Barnabas are sent out. Here the 
thought of authorizing and commissioning to a specific work predominates. 

2. The substantival expression occurs once in connection with baptism (Acts 
8:17 ff.). On another occasion it denotes one of the elementary doctrines of Christ 
(Heb. 6:2). Twice (1 Tim. 4:14; 2 Tim. 1:6) it denotes the rite by which Timothy 
was ordained. According to these two passages, Timothy had conferred upon him 
through the laying on of hands by the elders or Paul the gift of grace for leading the 
congregation, preaching the word and teaching or refuting false teachers. It is 
surmised by those who on literary grounds deny the Pauline authorship of the 
Pastoral Epistles that the church here, which dates from the beginning of the 2nd 
cent., is using a historical fiction. Its aim was to give apostolic justification to its 
understanding of ordination (the conferment of grace for office), which has de- 
parted from the Pauline understanding of the free working of the Spirit. 

3. It is striking that in every passage, where the laying on of hands appears in 
connection with ordination or sending out for a particular service, it is always 
carried out by people who at that moment possess different gifts. In Acts 6:6 the 
laying on of hands is performed by the apostles; in Acts 13:3 by prophets and 
teachers; in 1 Tim. 4:14 by the elders; and in 2 Tim. 1:6 by Paul. This suggests 
that the NT does not yet recognize the power of ordination as being restricted to a 
particular office, e.g. that of the apostles. 

Reference must also be made to the close connection between the laying on of 
hands and intercessory prayer. This indicates that there is no thought of the transfer 
of a particular quality, necessary for office, from one office-bearer to another 
involving the idea of succession. The idea that the gifts of grace are at men’s dis- 
posal is sharply contradicted by Peter’s clash with Simon Magus (Acts 8:18 ff.). 
It is God himself who equips his servants with his gifts and sends them out. This 
happens through the prayer of the church. The laying on of hands bears witness to 
the church’s conviction that their prayers which are founded on God’s promises 
have been heard. H.-G. Schiitz 
—> Apostle, — Bishop, — Serve 

(a). Arndt, 106, 169, 736, 888; H. von Campenhausen, Ecclesiastical Authority and Spiritual 

Power in the Church of the First Three Centuries, 1969; J. G. Davies, He Ascended into Heaven 
’ (Bampton Lectures, 1958), 1958; D. Daube, ““The Laying on of Hands” in The New Testament 
and Rabbinic Judaism, 1956; B. S. Easton, “Jewish and Early Christian Ordination’’, Anglican 
Theological Review, 5, 1922-23, 308-19; 6, 1923-24, 285-95; abridged in Early Christianity: The 
Purpose of Acts and Other Papers, 1955, 135-43; A. Ehrhardt, “Jewish and Christian Ordina- 
tion”, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 5, 1954, 125-38; reprinted in The Framework of the New 
Testament Stories, 1964, 132-50; E. Ferguson, ‘“‘Laying on of Hands: Its Significance in Ordina- 
tion” JTS New Series 26, 1975, 1-12; K. Grayston, ““The Significance of the Word Hand in the 
New Testament’’, in Festschrift B. Rigaux, 1970, 479-87; W. Grundmann, dexios, TDNT II 37-— 
40; D. M. Hay, Glory at the Right Hand: Psalm 110 in Early Christianity, 1973; F. Hahn, The 



Titles of Jesus in Christology, 1969, especially 129 ff.; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972°; 
G. W. H. Lampe, The Seal of the Spirit, 1951, 223-31; E. Lohse, cheir etc., TDNT IX 424-38; 
S. New, ““The Name, Baptism, and the Laying on of Hands’’, in F. J. Foakes—Jackson and K. Lake, 
The Beginnings of Christianity, V, 1933, 121-40; W. D. McHardy, “‘Mark 7? — A Reference to the 
Old Testament ?’’, ExpT 87, 1975-76, 119; J. Newman, Semikhah, 1950; J. K. Parratt, ‘‘The 
Laying on of Hands in the New Testament”’, ExpT 80, 1968-69, 210-14; J. J. M. Roberts, ““The 
Hand of Yahweh’’, VT 21, 1971, 244-51; H. Schlier, daktylos, TDNT II 20f.; K. L. Schmidt, 
pygmé, TDNT III 915 ff.; M. H. Shepherd, Jr., “Hands, Laying on of”, /DB II 521 f.; H. P. Smith, 
“The Laying on of Hands’, American Journal of Theology 17, 1913, 47-62; C. H. Turner, cheiro- 
tonia, cheirothesia, epithesis cheiron, JTS 24, 1923, 496-504; P. R. Weis, ““A Note on pygmeé’’, 
NTS 3, 1956-57, 233-36; J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology, 1962. 

(b). N. Adler, Taufe und Handauflegung, 1951; and ‘‘Die Handauflegung im Neuen Testament 
bereits ein Bussritus? Zur Auslegung von | Tim. 5, 22’, Neutestamentliche Aufsatze, Festschrift 
J. Schmid, 1963, 1 ff.; J. Behm, Die Handauflegung im Urchristentum, 1911; J. Coppens, 
L’imposition des mains et les rites connexes dans le Nouveau Testament et dans I’ Eglise ancienne, 
1925; J. Daniélou, ‘‘La Session a la droite du Pére,”’ in The Gospels Reconsidered: A Selection of 
Papers read at the International Congress on the Four Gospels in 1957, 1960, 68-77; J. Galtier, 
‘Imposition des mains’, Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, VII, 1972, 1302-1425; E. Lohse, 
Die Ordination im Spatjudentum und im Neuen Testament, 1951; U. Luck, Hand und Hand Gottes. 
Ein Beitrag zur Grundlage und Geschichte des biblischen Gottesverstandnisses (dissertation, 
Munster), 1959; R. Mayer and N. Adler, ‘“‘Handauflegung’’, L7K IV 1343 ff.; S. Morenz, H. D. 
Wendland and W. Jannasch, ‘“‘Handauflegung’’, RGG? III 52 ff.; G. Révész, Die menschliche Hand, 
1944; O. Weinreich, Antike Heilungswunder, 1909; A. S. van der Woude, yad, THAT I 667-74. 

Hard, Hardened 

okdnpdc (skléros, hard, rough; oxAnpotne (sklérotés), 
oe Chardness; okAnptvw@ (sklérynd), to be, become, hard; 
ok hn pot payndog (sklérotrachélos), stiff-necked, obstinate; ak Ay poxa poia (skleéro- 
kardia), hard-heartedness; mmwpow (poroo), harden, become hard; zmpwoic 
(porosis), hardness; maybv@ (pachyno), thicken, make insensitive. 

oxy pos 

The concepts of being or making hard, firm, rigid and thick are expressed in the 
NT by the word groups skléros, pdros (péros) and pachys. The meanings converge 
with the result that substitutions take place in the course of the transmission of the 
NT text. 

CL 1. skléros (in secular Gk. from Hesiod on) means dry, hard, rough. From it is 

formed the noun sk/érotés, hardness. The vb. skléryné was originally a medical 
term (first attested in Hippocrates). In the active it means to harden; in the passive, 
to grow hard. sklérotrachélos (attested in Aesop and the LXX) means stiff-necked, 
stubborn, obdurate. 

2. porod (from Hippocrates on) is derived from poros, tufa or tuff (porous stone), 
and means to harden, to form a callus (when broken bones heal), and thus to 
petrify, to become hard. The word is only used figuratively in the NT. The same is 
true of the verbal noun porosis, hardening. In almost every NT passage where 
porood and porosis occur, pérod and pérdsis appear as variants. péroO means 
to make lame, to maim; and when used of the eyes, to blind. Correspondingly 
pérosis means maiming, and then shortsightedness, blindness. This root is also 
used figuratively and in this sense means virtually the same as porod. As pérod 



occurs more frequently in literature, the substitution of the words in the process of 
copying is easily explained. pdrod doubtless represents the original form of the text. 

3. pachyno 1s derived from pachys, thick, fat (in secular Gk. from Aeschylus on). 
It originally meant to thicken, to fatten; then by extension to make impervious 
(to water). Hence figuratively it came to mean to make insensitive, and in the 
passive, to be insensitive. 

oT The most frequent Heb. equivalent for sk/éros and its derivatives is gasah. 

hazaq and other vbs. are also used, but these word groups are rare. Harden- 
ing, according to the OT understanding, results from the fact that men persist in 
shutting themselves to God’s call and command. A state then arises in which a 
man is no longer able to hear and in which he is irretrievably enslaved. Alterna- 
tively, God makes the hardening final, so that the people affected by it cannot 
escape from it. 

1. In the oldest OT narratives it is always non-Israelites who are hardened. The 
most important narrative is that of the hardening of Pharaoh (Exod. 4 ff.). After 
every appeal by Moses and every plague we read, “Still Pharaoh’s heart was 
hardened”’ (Exod. 7:13, 22; 8:15, etc.). It is God who hardens Pharaoh’s heart (in 
passages attributed to the Elohistic strand). Whole peoples too are hardened by 
God, e.g. the Canaanites: ‘‘For it was the Lord’s doing to harden their hearts that 
they should come against Israel in battle, in order that they should be utterly 
destroyed, and should receive no mercy” (Jos. 11:20). Non-Israelites were hardened, 
therefore, only when they came into contact with Israel, for the hardening of the 
peoples was one of the means God used to fulfil his purpose for Israel. 

2. Not until the great prophets is — Israel also seen as a hardened people. This 
is expressed most strongly in Isa. God’s word had come to the priests and prophets 
in Jerusalem, but they did not want to listen. Hence, God’s word became a word of 
judgment against them, ‘“‘that they may go, and fall backward, and be broken” 
(Isa. 28:12 f.). On the occasion of his call Isaiah received the command, “‘Make the 
heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with 
their eyes and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn and 
be healed’”’ (Isa. 6:10). God’s judgment on his people is not that he no longer 
speaks to them. Rather his word is still proclaimed with utter clarity. But because 
the people hitherto have not wanted to listen, from now on they will be unable to. 
The vineyard which did not want to bear fruit (Isa. 5:1-7) is now unable to, 
because God has forbidden the clouds to rain on it. God’s judgment encompasses 
the destruction of the people (Isa. 6:11). 

3. This contention that it is God himself who mercilessly hardens Israel is an 
extreme statement. The later prophets do not speak with the same severity. Jere- 
miah spoke of hardening, but he no longer named God as its cause. For Jeremiah 
the cause is the obstinacy of the people who give heed to the false prophets, 
whereas for Isaiah the prophet himself is carrying out God’s commission. It is 
interesting that the LXX softens Isa. 6 by transmitting the command to Isaiah in 
the indicative: “‘for the heart of this people is stupefied; and their ears are dull of 
hearing; and they have shut their eyes, that for a while they may not see with their 
eyes; and hear with their ears; and understand with their hearts; and return that I 
may heal them.”’ 



The decisive new element is the promise in the later period of God’s new — 
covenant. Then Israel will hear and recognize the Lord (Jer. 31:33 f.), and men 
will receive a new, no longer a hard, heart and a new spirit (Ezek. 36:26 f.). 

4. In the Wisdom Literature the righteous and the godless are constantly 
contrasted. The latter are characterized in many passages as hardened (Prov. 28:14; 
29:1). Here attention is directed more to the guilt occasioned by hardness. Harden- 
ing is the continually mounting refusal on the part of man to listen to God’s 
command. It is not, however, inevitable. There is room, therefore, for the appeal, 
‘“O that today you would hearken to his voice! Harden not your hearts” (Ps. 95:8). 
For God’s judgment takes place as a result of hardness. No longer is hardness 
itself a judgment from God as in Isa. 

NT All these words are comparatively rare in the NT. They occur throughout the 

Synoptics (11 out of a total of 26 occurrences), a few times in Acts, in Paul 
(porood and its derivatives, and sk/érotés), in Heb. (skléryno 4 times) and in Jude and 
Jas. (skléros once in each). 

1. (a) skléros is used in its metaphorical sense of things: anemon skléron, strong 
rough winds (Jas. 3:4); of Jesus’ words, sk/éros estin ho logos houtos, “‘this is a hard 
[unacceptable] saying’”’ (Jn. 6:60). God will punish the ungodly because of all the 
hard things (some MSS add, words) which they have spoken against him (Jude 15 
quoting Eth. Enoch. 1:9). It is also used of people: the kyrios, the master in the 
parable of the talents, is described in Matt. 25:24 as skléros anthropos, a hard, i.e., 
hard-hearted man. sk/éros is used absolutely in Acts 26:14: “It is hard for you 
[i.e. difficult; sk/éron soi] to kick against the goad.’ A few ancient MSS and ver- 
sions also include this phrase in Acts 9:4. 

(b) sklérotés occurs in Rom. 2:5 and describes a human characteristic. By their 
hard and impenitent hearts the Jews are storing up for themselves the wrath of the 
coming judgment, on account of their self-righteousness and impenitence. 

(c) skléryno is used transitively with a human subject: ‘“‘Do not harden your 
hearts” (Heb. 3:8, 15; 4:7). The appeal of Ps. 95:8 is repeated three times; the 
community must not forfeit God’s promise. With ‘“‘God”’ as subject the word 
occurs In Rom. 9:18: “‘He hardens the heart of whomever he wills.’’ Exod. 4:21 
(the hardening of Pharaoh) is doubtless in the background here. God punishes by 
abandoning people to their sin (cf. Rom. 1:24, 26, 28). 

Heb. 3:13 takes up the appeal of v. 8 in the passive, ‘“‘that none of you may be 
hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.” In Acts 19:9 it is said of the Jews in Ephesus 
that some of them were “hardened” at Paul’s preaching in the synagogue and 
openly abused his teaching. 

(d) sklérotrachélos occurs only in Acts 7:51. In his speech Stephen calls the Jews 
“‘stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears,”’ like their fathers always 
resisting the Holy Spirit, unwilling to listen to God and killing his prophets. 

2. (a) poroo is used metaphorically in all five passages where it occurs. In Mk. 
6:52 the word is used of the hardening of Jesus’ disciples. ‘““‘Their hearts were 
hardened,” so that they still did not understand who the Lord was (cf. 8:17). In 
Jn. 12:40 it refers to the Jews again at whose hand Jesus met with rejection. The 
word occurs in a proof-text (Isa. 6:9 f.; while it does not follow the LXX, it uses 



the indicative as in the LXX). The two Pauline passages also refer to the Jews: “‘the 
rest [i.e. the non-elect] were hardened” (Rom. 11:7); and ‘“‘their minds were 
hardened” (2 Cor. 3:14). 

(b) Two passages also apply the verbal noun pdrosis to the Jews. Jesus is grieved 
at their “hardness of heart” (Mk. 3:5; cf. Mk. 10:5 par. Matt. 19:8, sklérokardia). 
Paul states in Rom. 11:25, “ta hardening has come upon Israel.” In Eph. 4:18 it is 
said of the Gentiles, ‘‘they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the 
life of God because of their hardness of heart.” 

3. Both passages where pachyno occurs (Matt. 13:15; Acts 28:27) quote from 
Isa. 6:9 f. (here the quotation is used as in the LXX). 

4. All these words, including the adj. sk/éros, are used in an exclusively meta- 
phorical and theological sense and denote the same idea: the reluctance of men to 
respond to God. In the NT men who do not open themselves to the gospel are 
described as hardened. The same can be said of Jews and Gentiles, and also of 
Jesus’ disciples who did not understand the — cross to which they were to become 
witnesses. The prophetic idea that God hardens men is taken over from the OT 
(e.g. Rom. 11) without for a moment losing sight of man’s personal responsibility 
(Rom. 2:5). Thus in the NT hardening also describes the inability to hear which 
renders a man liable to judgment. This applies also to the appeals in Heb. These 
are meaningful only because hardness is broken down with the promise of forgive- 
ness and a new beginning (cf. 8:9 f.). With the gospel God also gives the ability to 
understand it (cf. however Heb. 6:4 ff.). 

God has “given up” men to their sin (Rom. 1:24). But in Christ he gives a new 
opportunity of hearing through his Spirit; he fulfils the promises of the OT. Over 
against hardening, the inability to receive the word of God, stands — faith, the 
obedient reception of the word. The question whether, despite Christ’s coming, 
the Jews will remain hardened, is grappled with by Paul in his exposition of God’s 
plan of salvation in Rom. 9-11. U. Becker 
—» Determine, — Elect, —- Heart, + Lead Astray, — Sin 

(a). G. L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 1964, 116; G. C. Berkouwer, Faith and 
Perseverance, 1958; and Sin, 1971; B. S. Childs, ““The Hardening of Pharaoh’, Exodus, 1974, 
170-75; L. J. Kuyper, ““The Hardness of Heart according to Biblical Perspectives’’, S/T 27, 1974, 
459-74; I. H. Marshall, Kept by the Power of God: A Study of Perseverance and Falling Away, 1969; 
G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, Il, 1965; H. Raisanen, The Idea of Divine Hardening. A 
Comparative Study of the Notion of Divine Hardening, Leading Astray, and Inciting to Evil in the 
Bible and the Qur’an, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 25, 1972; K. L. Schmidt and 
M. A. Schmidt, skléros etc., TDNT V 1028-31; E. J. Young, The Book of Isaiah, 1965, 253-65. 
(b). J. Gnilka, Das Problem der Verstockung Israels nach den synoptischen Evangelien und der 
Apostelgeschichte, 1961; F. Hesse, Das Verstockungsproblem im Alten Testament. Eine frém- 
migkeitsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, BZAW 74, 1955; F. Hesse, R. Gyllenberg, J. Moltmann, 
‘““Verstockung”’, RGG?® VI 1383 ff.; E. Jenni, ‘““Jesajas Berufung in der neueren Forschung’’, ThZ 
15, 1959, 321 ff.; K. L. Schmidt, ‘““Die Verstockung des Menschen durch Gott: Eine lexikologische 
und biblisch-theologische Studie”, ThZ 1, 1945, 1-17. 


— Kxedalp Kepadn (kephalé), head; avaxedadaidopuai (anakepha- 
| 7 | laioomai), sum up, recapitulate. 



CL kephalé, head, attested from Homer on, is related to the Gothic word gibla 

(Eng. gable) but also to Eng. head. Derivatives from it include kephalaion, 
main point (Heb. 8:1), sum of money (Acts 22:28); kephalaiod, sum up, late Gk. 
strike on the head (Mk. 12:4); late Gk. kephalis, little head (Heb. 10:7 “roll” of a 
book) and anakephalaioomai (see below). In secular Gk. kephalé means: 

1. The head of man or beast, the coping of a wall, the capital of a column etc., 
the source or mouth of a river, the beginning or end of a month, etc. In Plato the 
“head of a speech” is its conclusion (~ Goal, art. telos). 

2. What is decisive, superior. In Gk. anthropology the head takes precedence 
over all other members; it is, or in it lies, the authoritative principle, the reason 
(hégemonikon). If the emphasis is upon the idea of origin, kephalé takes on some 
of the meanings of arché (— Beginning). But the head of a community is never 
referred to as a kephalé (TDNT III 673). 

3. kephalé also stands for the life of an individual. As early as Homer it was 
used in a similar way to psyché (— Soul). Thus, curses which name the head are 
directed against the whole person and his life. 

oT 1. In the LXX kephalé most frequently translates the Heb. ré’s. Beside kephalé 

numerous other equivalents for ré’s are to be found: e.g. frequently arché 
(— beginning: Ps. 137[136]:6; Isa. 41:4); prototokos (— first; 1 Chr. 5:12), kephalé 
has the primary meanings we know from cl. Gk.: the head of a man (Gen. 
28:11), of a beast (Gen. 3:16), the top of a mountain (Gen. 8:5) or of a tower 
(Gen. 11:4) etc. 

2. The head is particularly important in the language of gesture. It was shaven 
in times of grief (Ezek. 7:18). The man who was under a vow did not shave it 
(Num. 6:5; cf. Acts 18:18). It was covered (2 Sam. 15:30) or strewn with ashes 
(2 Sam. 13:19) as a sign of penitence. 

({Ed.] Prov. 25:21 f. states: “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat; and 
if he is thirsty, given him water to drink; for you will heap coals of fire on his head, 
and the LorD will reward you”’ (RSV). The thought is taken up in Rom. 12:20. 
After urging believers not to avenge themselves, for ‘““Vengeance is mine, I will 
repay, says the Lord” (Rom. 12:19; cf. Deut. 32:35; Lev. 19:18), Paul declares: 
‘No, if your enemy is hungry, feed him, if he is thirsty give him drink; for by doing 
so you will heap burning coals upon his head. Do not be overcome by evil, but 
overcome evil with good.”’ The imagery behind this thought is debated. It has been 
suggested that it derives from an Egyptian penitential ritual in which live coals 
were endured as an act of contrition (S. Morenz, ‘‘Feurige Kohlen auf dem Haupt,”’ 
TLZ 78, 1953, 187-92; cf. W. Klassen, “Coals of Fire: Sign of Repentance or 
Revenge?”’, N7S 9, 1962-3, 337-50). Morenz suggests that while the rite was 
probably confined to Egypt, the metaphor was more widely used (cf. W. McKane, 
Proverbs, 1970, 592). R. B. Y. Scott also suggests ‘“‘A form of torture; but to 
return good for evil will be more effective in overcoming enmity, and so the enemy” 
(Proverbs, 1965, 156). Scott notes similar thoughts in Exod. 23:4 f.; Prov. 20:22; 
24:17 f. D. Kidner comments: ‘“‘The coals of fire represent the pangs which are far 
better felt now as shame than later as punishment (Ps. 140:10). Cf. Amenemope, 
chapter 2:19 ff.” (Proverbs, 1964, 160, cf. 23). He sees the saying as representing the 
climax of ideas in Prov. 24:11 f., 17 f., 29. In his use of the text Paul omits the 



thought of personal reward for the Christian. His concern is that the life of the 
believer should be free from all thought of revenge, that the enemy might be 
convicted (though not necessarily converted — for that is God’s work) by kindness, 
and that the way to overcome evil is not to repay in kind (which only leads to 
bondage to it) but to repay it with good. The repetition of Deut. 32:35 at Heb. 
10:30 suggests that it may have had a firm place in early catechetical teaching (cf. 
M. J. Dahood, CBQ 17, 1955, 19-24). The juxtaposition with Prov. 12:25 repre- 
sents Paul’s gloss on it, and provides an introduction to Paul’s teaching on how 
~both Jewish and Gentile believers should regard the governing authorities 

3. Via expressions like “per head”’ (Exod. 16:16, RSV “‘apiece’”’) and “‘head by 
head’’ (Num. 1:2), the use of kephalé in the LXX was extended to cover the life of 
the individual. The OT sees man in action as a unity, but in each case it singles out 
that part of him which is significant. In this case it is the head as source of the life- 
stream. The head can be used as the equivalent of the person and his whole exis- 
tence (e.g. 2 Ki. 25:27; Ps. 3:3; Ezek. 9:10; 33:4; 1 Sam. 25:39; cf. Acts 18:6; 
Matt. 27:25). In Isa. 43: 4 kephalé stands for nepES ‘and denotes the — life of each 
individual within the people. 

4. By comparison with the other nations Israel will be “the head and not the 
tail’ (Deut. 28:13; cf. Isa. 9:14). Thus kephalé in the LXX can denote also the head, 
i.e. the one who occupies a position of superiority in the community (cf. Jdg. 10:18; 
1 Ki. 21:12, Codex A). But “‘this use does not have the further thought that those 
ruled by the kephalé are in the relation to it of a s6ma”’ (H. Schlier, TDNT III 675). 
The head of the statue (Dan. 2:31 f.) only represented one kingdom in and of 
itself, and does not carry any implications about its relation to the body. 

5. In Jewish literature ré’s is used like kephalé in the LXX sometimes in connec- 
tion with Deut. 28:13 (e.g. Jub. 1:16). The usage does not extend beyond the 
meanings already mentioned. The head, which the members obey, is a metaphor 
for unity (Test. Zeb. 9). The word was also used to refer to Adam as the head of 
created beings (Sl. Enoch 2:22), to the head of those who worship idols (Heb. 
Enoch 5:6), to the head of the synagogue (the president, Sot. 7:7 f.). This use of 
ro’s is continued without further development in the Qumran texts. 

6. Philo’s use of kephalé was seminal. The Jogos (— word) is the head of the 
universe which God has created, its source of life, overlord, ruler. ‘He stamps the 
world like a seal, separates species and genera like one who cuts ... and by means 
of the heavenly eikdn [— Image] gives them a part in God” (C. Colpe, RGG? V 
343; > Knowledge, art. gindsko). 

7. In contrast to near-eastern and Orphic mythology which saw the whole cosmos 
encompassed in the head and body of the highest god (— Time, art. aidn), Philo 
represented belief in God as the creator of the cosmos. In certain forms of gnosti- 
cism (— Knowledge), however, the former belief returned and Aion, whose body 
is the cosmos and from whom as primal man all men take their form, receives the 
characteristics of the redeemer (sdtér; > Redemption, art. s6zo). He has this role 
in gnostic mythological speculation on the basis of his cosmological rank and not 
on that of any saving work in history. The gnostic use of kephalé very much 
resembles that of arché. Above all kephalé serves to denote not only the unity of the 



body, but also the controlling influence over it. The post-Christian Odes of Solo- 
mon speak of the head concept of the first man in a manner comparable with that 
in which the NT speaks of Christ. ““For they have become my members and I their 
head. Praise be to You, our Head, Jesus Christ!” (Od. Sol. 17). (On Hellenistic 
and gnostic evidence see H. Schlier, TDNT III 676 ff.) 

NT 1. In the NT, where kephalé appears 75 times, the word occurs primarily in its 

basic meaning of the head of a man (Matt. 14:8), of an animal, or of demons 
(Rev. 17:3). kephalé occurs by far the most frequently in Rev. (19 times) where it 
refers to those human and animal forms who are characterized by the shape or the 
ornament of their heads. The head bears the tokens of honour and dignity (Rev. 
4:4; 19:12; etc.), but also those of shame (Rev. 13:1). In the passion narrative 
Jesus’ head is frequently mentioned (Matt. 27:29 f., 37; Mk. 15:19, 29; Jn. 19:2, 
30). The smiting of Jesus’ head stands in marked contrast with the anointing of 
it (Matt. 26:7; Mk. 14:3; Lk. 7:46) and the promise to faithful disciples that not 
a hair of their head shall perish (Matt. 10:30; Lk. 21:18; cf. 12:7). The head of 
Jesus is also mentioned in the resurrection narratives (Jn. 20:7, 12). The head of 
John the Baptist is mentioned in Matt. 14:8, 11 and Mk. 6:24-28. On the phrase 
kephalé gonias, head of the corner Matt. 21:42 par. Mk. 12:10, Lk. 20:17; cf. 
Acts 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:7; quoting Ps. 118:22, — Rock. 

2. The head is mentioned in the NT also in connection with the customs of 
fasting and penitence (Matt. 6:17; Acts 18:18; Rev. 18:19). As we know from the 
LXX the shaking of the head signifies that a claim and its consequences have been 
rejected (Matt. 27:39). With the phrase, ‘““Your blood be upon your heads!”’ the 
departing apostle placed upon the Corinthian Jews the responsibility for the rejec- 
tion of the messiah (Acts 18:6; cf. on this point Matt. 27:25 which is also evidence 
that kephalé stands for the individual as a whole). The numbering of the hairs of the 
head (Matt. 10:30) and the saying that “not a hair of your head will perish” (Lk. 
21:18) speak of God’s promise to preserve those who commit themselves into his 
hands. In wanting to have his head washed (Jn. 13:9), Peter wanted his whole life 
to be cleansed. Jesus prohibited swearing by one’s head. ““Whoever risks his head 
for something in an oath speaks as if he had power over his own life” (T. Zahn on 
Matt. 5:36). The rabbis refused to allow anyone to retract an oath by the life of the 
head (San. 3:2). K. Munzer 

3. 1 Cor. 11 :2-15 contains a discussion of reasons why women should be required 
to veil the head during public worship. In Judaism women were always veiled in 
public (cf. J. Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus, 1969, 358 ff.). E. Kasemann 
claims that Paul is here trying to introduce into the Corinthian church a custom 
which was foreign to Greek women (New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 210; 
cf. also SB III 427-34). The customs seem to have varied from place to place (cf. W. 
Ramsay, The Cities of Paul, 1907, 202 ff.; A. Jaubert, “‘La voile des femmes (I Cor. xi. 
2-16)” NTS 18, 1971-2, 424 ff.). But Paul’s teaching here may have been influenced 
by the presence of Jews in Corinth who maintained Jewish practices in their syna- 
gogue worship and who may well have looked with a critical eye on what was going on 
in the church. Immediately before the present passage Paul has urged that no offence 
be given to Jews, the Greeks or to the church (1 Cor. 10:32), and that the church 



should follow him in trying to please all men and in being imitators of Christ (1 Cor. 
10:33-11:1). The underlying problem was one of freedom in the light of the new 
and equal standing of the sexes before God. ‘“‘The Corinthian watch-word ‘free- 
dom’, which, considered both in itself and in connection with the specific case at 
issue, seems to be more enlightened than the Pauline reaction to it, suffers from the 
basic defect of enthusiastic piety; it takes account of freedom exclusively as free- 
dom from burdensome compulsion. The apostle, on the other hand, is concerned 
here, as always, with the freedom which knows itself to be called to serve and it is 
just this freedom which he sees threatened where enthusiasm is rattling at the doors 
of the existing order and proclaiming its allegedly just claims in the name of the 
Spirit” (E. Kasemann, op. cit., 211). Paul is concerned not only with freedom but 
with order in society. For him the role and relationships of the sexes which are 
determined by creation are not abolished by salvation. This must be reflected in 
public worship (cf. A. Jaubert, op. cit., 419 f.). He advances the following argu- 
ments for the subordinate role of women and for the veiling of the woman’s head 
which results from it. 

(a) The hierarchy of the order: God-Christ-man-woman in which each of the 
first three members is the head of the following (v. 3). Here head is probably to be 
understood not as “chief” or ‘ruler’ but as ‘“‘source” or “‘origin’’ (F. F. Bruce, 
I and 2 Corinthians, 1971, 103; cf. S. Bedale, ““The Meaning of kephalé in the Pauline 
Epistles’, JTS New Series 5, 1954, 211 ff.). The creation narrative of Gen. 2:21 ff. 
assigns a priority to man (cf. also Eph. 5:22 ff.; Col. 3:18 f.; 1 Tim. 2:11 ff.). But 
the Christian knows that Christ has a greater priority as the archetypal man (cf. 
8:6; 15:46-49; Col. 1:16), and the head of Christ 1s God (cf. 3:23; 8:6). F. F. 
Bruce points out that there is a transition from the sense of head in v. 3 to its 
literal sense in vv. 4-6 and from now on there is an oscillation between the two 
senses. He also notes that what Paul has in mind here when he speaks of covering 
the head is a veil which conceals the whole head including the hair. (The present- 
day Jewish practice of men wearing a hat in the synagogue appears to reverse the 
practice here.) Paul argues that for a man to pray with his head covered is to 
dishonour his head (v. 4, cf. v. 7), because it implies that he is abdicating the sover- 
eignty and dignity given to him by the Creator. But for a woman to pray or pro- 
phesy with her head unveiled dishonours her head (v. 5), for this is tantamount to a 
denial of her relation to man in the ordinances of creation. It 1s just as dishonour- 
able as if her head were shaven which was a commonly accepted sign of dishonour 
(cf. the case of Bernice in Josephus, War 2, 313 f.; M. D. Hooker, “Authority on 
her head: an examination of | Cor. xi. 10”, NTS 10, 1963-64, 410). Paul’s argument 
at this point has two premises. The one is the propriety of covering the head in the 
presence of a superior; the other is the constitutional relationship of man and 
woman which gives a certain priority to the man. Given these two premises the 
propriety of veiling the woman in worship (which of all times is the most solemn 
occasion for recognizing the divine ordering of things) logically follows. However, 
in a situation where the former premise is neither recognized nor understood, the 
validity of the conclusion no longer has the same weight as it did in Paul’s day. 

(b) The priority of man in the order of creation in relation to the glory of God 
(vv. 7-9, 12). The argument is now developed in relation to the concept of — glory. 
Gen. 1:26f. states that — man (Heb. adam; Gk. anthropos) was made in the 



—> image of God, i.e. male and female together. Here Paul speaks only of the male 
(Gk. anér). Perhaps he is reading Gen. 2:18 ff. in the light of Gen. 1:26 f. On the 
other hand, he also couples together here the concepts of image and glory in a way 
which goes beyond the Gen. narratives. ““For a man ought not to cover his head, 
since he is the image and the glory of God; but woman is the glory of man” (v. 7). 
Elsewhere Paul argues that man has fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23; 
cf. 1:21), and that the glory of God is revealed in the gospel in the face of Christ 
(2 Cor. 4:4 ff.) who restores the image of God in man (Col. 3:10). In addition to 
the priority of man in the created order and the significance of veiling, Paul here 
has two further premises which are implied in his conclusion. On the one hand, the 
glory of God should not be veiled in the presence of God, for this would be a 
contradiction in terms. Hence, the man should not be veiled. On the other hand, 
woman is the glory of man (for woman was made for man, cf. v. 9). Hence, the 
glory of man should be veiled in the presence of God (cf. F. F. Bruce, op. cit., 105 f.). 
Again it may be said that the practical application drawn from these premises 
depends upon how far they are understood and recognized in a community. 

(c) The reference to the angels (v. 10). Here the Gk. texts says: ‘“That is why the 
woman ought to have authority [exousia] over the head because of the angels.” 
The substitution of ‘“‘veil’’ (RSV) is an interpretative gloss which obscures the point. 
The veil is a sign of the woman’s authority. In Christ she has an equal status with 
men before God. M. D. Hooker (op. cit.) argues that the veil was a sign of this 
new authority which was denied her in the synagogue. As a woman she may pray 
or prophesy (v. 5), but she must maintain due regard for her place in the created 
order. Whereas the man shows his authority by not being veiled, the woman shows 
hers by wearing a veil. The wearing of the veil manifests both the liberty and the 
restraint that belongs to the woman in Christ. The liberty (as in all things) derives 
from freedom in Christ; the restraint (as elsewhere) derives from the ordering of 
society which has divine sanction. 

It seems unlikely that — angels are mentioned here because of possible sexual 
attraction (cf. Jude 6 and a possible interpretation of Gen. 6:2; Tertullian, On the 
Veiling of Virgins 7). F. F. Bruce sees the appeal to angels as an argument for 
propriety in gatherings of the people of God because angels are guardians of the 
created order (op. cit., 106; cf. G. B. Caird, Principalities and Powers, 1956, 17-22). 
In the Qumran texts angels were said to be present at meetings of the congregation 
(1QSa 2:8 f.; cf. 1 QM 7:6). A. Jaubert, however, claims that there is no support 
for regarding angels as guardians of order in meetings. She stresses the context of 
worship here and the réle of angels in worship elsewhere. For angels are charged 
with the task of transmitting prayers to God (Rev. 8:3). They are the sign of the 
divine presence (Ps. 131 LXX). Angels enter communion with the congregation 
(1 QM 12:8; 1 QH 3:19-23). Therefore no offence should be given them (1QSa 
2:5-9; 1 QM 7:6; CD 15:15 ff.; cf. A. Jaubert, op. cit., 427). The major premise of 
the argument is that one should not give offence, and in this particular case to the 
angels. The minor premise which is implied is that the veil is a sign of a woman's 
status and authority in the Christian community. Therefore women should be 
veiled in worship. Again it may be said that, whilst the guiding principles for Paul’s 
recommendation hold good, the continued application of it depends upon the 
continued acceptance of all the premises of the argument. In a culture where the 



significance of veiling 1s no longer understood in the same way, the argument no 
longer has the same force. 

(d) The appeal to custom grounded tn the natural order (vv. 13-15). Paul shares 
the view that it is natural for men to have their hair short, though it may be grown 
longer on occasion in connection with a vow (Acts 18:18; cf. also Epictetus, 1, 16, 
9-14 quoted by C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 1968, 256 f.). 
The statement that the long hair of the woman is “her pride’, “‘given to her for a 
covering” (v. 15) does not imply that if she has sufficient hair, she does not need to 
be veiled. Rather, the veiling of the woman in worship is seen as consonant with 
nature. The argument cannot be taken to imply scriptural sanction for insisting 
that man today must have closely cropped hair. What might be regarded as long 
hair in a male in twentieth-century western society might have passed for short hair 
in first-century middle-eastern society. On the other hand, unkempt inordinately 
long hair in a male is generally regarded as degrading (cf. v. 14). Paul’s view of the 
woman’s hair as “her pride’? may also take up the thought that, just as in the 
presence of God the glory of man must be veiled (see above (b)), so too must the 
‘pride’ of the woman. In each case Paul uses the same word doxa. V. 16 concludes 
the argument by stating that this is the practice recognized by Paul and the other 
churches. The passage has been cited in support of the contention that women 
must wear hats in worship today. If this application were valid, the argument would 
support not the wearing of hats but veiling in the eastern sense. However, the above 
discussion has shown that its force depends upon the common understanding of 
certain premises which were valid in the context of Paul’s culture. Where these no 
longer obtain, the conclusions also no longer obtain, even though the motivating 
principle of maintaining the liberty of the spirit with due regard to the order of 
nature and society still holds. C. Brown 

_ 4, In Eph. 4 the head is contrasted with the — body (art. s6ma): Christ is the 
head of his body (v. 15). The body is supplied from the head and grows because of 
it (v. 16). To describe the relationship of the Lord to his people, the —~ church, Eph. 
makes use of the concept of the primal man: the church is to grow eis andra 
teleion, into the perfect or complete man (v. 13). In this picture, Christ is the 
head, and as head he sustains the whole body. Thus, in v. 15 the head determines 
the relationship of love and truth in the body of Christ, 1.e. the fellowship of those 
who practise truth and through love grow up into him. The relationship of kephalé 
to soma expresses the authority of Christ (cf. Col. 2:10) and the corresponding 
subordination of the church. It expresses participation and dependence of the body 
on the head for the gift of life. It also contains “‘the element of an eschatological 
orientation of the Church”’ (H. Schlier, 7DNT III 680). The head is always the 
heavenly goal of the body which cannot be attained except in a body sustained by 
faith and revelation. Eph. 1:21 f. declares that all powers are now subject to Christ 
who is “‘the head of all things for the church.” The arché, the principality which 
previously was so important, is now one of the many subject to Christ. The applica- 
tion to Christ of arché (RSV “beginning’’) in Col. 1:18 (where he is also said to be 
‘the head of the body, the church’’) does not contradict this, for here the word 
stands in polemic juxtaposition to the archai (v. 16). (— Beginning, art. arché.) 
K. Munzer 



5. The rare vb. anakephalaioomai, which is found in Aristotle but is more 
common in late Gk. literature, means to bring something to a kephalaion, to sum 
up, recapitulate. It is found in the OT only in Theod. and the Quinta to Ps. 71:20. 
It is used in Rom. 13:9 of the individual commandments which are “summed up 
in this word, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ In Eph. 1:10 it occurs 
in the statement of God’s “‘plan for the fullness of time to recapitulate [anakepha- 
laidsasthai| all things in Christ, the things in the heavens and the things upon the 
earth.”’ The RSV translation “unite” stresses the unity implied in the vb. as does 
J. B. Lightfoot’s comment that it implies “‘the entire harmony of the universe, 
which shall no longer contain alien and discordant elements, but of which all the 
parts shall find their centre and bond of union in Christ” (Notes on the Epistles of 
St. Paul, 1895, 322). The thought of unity has affinity with the use of the vb. in 
Rom. and is one of the great themes of Eph. (cf. 2:14-22; 4:3 f.). But there may 
also be the overtone of renewal which is in fact a condition of unity. Christ and his 
people, both Jew and Gentile, comprise the “cone new man” (2:15; cf. 4:13). 
Moreover, this affects the whole created order. In his body which represents the 
pléréma (-—> Fullness), the heavenly domain of his presence, Christ draws all things 
to himself, and fills all in all (2:22; cf. 1:10). The church is “‘the centre, the mid- 
point from which Christ exercises his invisible lordship over the whole whole”’ 
(O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 19637, 229). The concept of 
recapitulation (Lat. recapitulatio; Gk. anakephalaiosis) features in the thought of 
Irenaeus (Haer. 5, 29, 2) and other church fathers (cf. H. Schlier, TDNT III 681 f.; 
Lampe, 106). C. Brown 
—> Body, — Church, — Flesh, — Fullness, — Hand 

(a). N. Adler, ‘““Head’’, EBT I 355-60; S. Bedale, ‘“‘The Meaning of kephalé in the Pauline Epistles”, 
JTS New Series 5, 1954, 211-15; and ‘“‘The Theology of the Church’’, in F. L. Cross, ed., Studies in 
Ephesians, 1956, 64-75; R. W. Crabb, The kephalé Concept in the Pauline Tradition with Special 
Emphasis on Colossians, Dissertation, San Francisco Theological Seminary, 1966 (microfilm); O. 
Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 1959; R. H. Fuller, The Foundations of New 
Testament Christology, 1965; M. D. Hooker, ‘‘Authority on her head: an examination of | Cor. xi. 
10”, NTS 10, 1963-64, 410 ff.; G. Howard, ‘“‘The Head/Body Metaphors of Ephesians’, N TS 20, 
1973-74, 350-6; E. Kasemann, “‘A Primitive Christian Baptismal Liturgy’’, in Essays on New Testa- 
ment Themes, 1964, 149-68; New Testament Questions of Today, 1969, 410-2; E. Lohse, Colossians 
and Philemon, 1971, 52 ff.; J. A. T. Robinson, The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology, 1952; 
H. Schlier, kephalé, anakephalaioomai, TDNT 111 673-82; W. O. Walker, Jr., ‘‘ 1 Corinthians 11: 2- 
16 and Paul’s View Regarding Women”, JBL 94, 1975, 94-110. 

(b). P. Benoit, “Corps, téte et plérGme dans les épitres de la captivité’’, RB 63, 1956, 5-44; P. 
Brunner, ““‘Das Hirtenamt und die Frau’’, Lutherische Rundschau 8, 1959; H.-J. Gabathuler, Jesus 
Christus, Haupt der Kirche — Haupt der Welt: Der Christushymnus Kolosser 1, 15-20 in der theolo- 
gischen Forschung der letzten 130 Jahre, ATHAnt 45, 1965; A. Jaubert, ‘“‘La voile des femmes (1 
Cor. xi. 2-16)”, NTS 18, 1971-72, 419-30; H. Lietzmann, An die Korinther I/LI, revised by W. G. 
Kummel, HNT 9, 1969°; E. Lohmeyer, Die Briefe an die Kolosser und an Philemon, KEK 9, with 
supplement by W. Schmauch, 1968'4; H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epheserbrief, 1930. 


When human well-being and good health are impaired, God is actively involved in 

the work of restoration, and Christians have the responsibility of sharing in this 

ministry. The idea of bringing about recovery from bodily or mental sickness is 


expressed most frequently by therapeuo (cf. Eng. “‘therapy’’), and sometimes by 
iaomai. therapeuo originally carried the idea of attendance upon superiors, or of 
cultic service (like thrésko, which has a related root). But significantly this idea is 
very rare in the NT, where the whole direction and purpose of such service is 
changed. Anyone or anything healed, 1.e. freed from infirmity and sickness, is 
spoken of as hygiés. hygiainod, the related vb., is used for bodily healing only in 
Lk., where it is synonymous with therapeud and iaomai. It appears principally in 
the Pastoral Epistles in connection with sound — teaching. 

[ Oepancioo | Jepaneve@ (therapeud), heal, cure; Gepdamav (therapon), 

E paTtev@ | : 

servant; Gepaneia (therapeia), service, treatment. 

CL & oT In profane Greek therapeuod has the meaning to serve, to be in service to 

(a superior); thus also to serve, in the sense of venerating the gods, 1.e. in cultic 

worship, to care for (e.g. as a doctor), whence finally to cure, usually by medical 

means. | 
The LXX frequently uses therapdn for the Heb. ‘ebed, attendant, servant. The 

use of the vb. seems rather imprecise, even haphazard: twice for yasab, to sit (Est. 

2:19; 6:10); once for ‘abad (Isa. 54:17); once for halah (piel), to appease (Prov. 

19:6); once for bagaS (piel), to seek (Prov. 29:26). 

NT With regard to the incidence of therapeuo in the NT, it is significant (a) that 

out of 43 occurrences, no less than 40 are found in the Synoptics and the Acts; 
(b) that, except in one place (Acts 17:25), therapeuo has exclusively the meaning to 
heal. This means that in the NT therapeud is never used in its profane sense to 
serve (cf. therapeia Lk. 12:42, “household servants’; or therapon Heb. 3:5, 
“servant’’). The cultic usage for the worship of God is found only in Acts 17:25, 
where Paul concludes from Isa. 42:5 (cf. Acts 17:24 f.) that God as the Creator of 
the world and the Lord of heaven and earth does not dwell in temples made by 
man and therefore cannot be “‘worshipped”’ in the sacrificial cult (cf. Acts 7:42 f.). 
({F.F.B.] The emphasis of Acts 17:25 is better brought out in the NEB rendering: 
“It is not because he lacks anything that he accepts service [therapeuetai| at men’s 

1. Only in Lk. 4:23 in the proverb “Physician, heal yourself’? and in 8:43 (the 
woman with the issue of blood “‘could not be healed by anyone’’) does therapeuo 
denote healing by ordinary medical means. In the rest of the passages therapeuo is 
used to describe the miraculous healings wrought by Jesus and his disciples. 

(a) In the Gospels the work of Jesus is presented in terms of teaching and 
working — miracles (Matt. 4:23 f.; 9:35; Lk. 6:18 and passim). Healing plays an 
essential part in Christ’s miraculous work, but the latter must be seen in the context 
of his teaching if it is to be understood aright. This is especially clear in the com- 
position of the Gospel of Matt., where the two great collections of Jesus’ — teach- 
ing (chs. 5—7) and of his —> miracles (chs. 8—9) are enclosed between the two almost 
identical verses Matt. 4:23 and 9:35 (Jesus “taught in their synagogues and preached 
the gospel of the kingdom, and healed all manner of sickness and all manner of 
disease among the people’, therapeuo being used in both places). This emphasizes 
Christ’s twofold office of teaching and healing (cf. H. J. Held in G. Bornkamm, G. 
Barth and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 1963, 246). 



While Jesus again and again heals the sick (Matt. 4:24; 12:15; 14:14; 15:30 and 
passim), this does not put him into the category of the Hel. theioi anthrdpoi (divine 
men), who in their miraculous acts of healing demonstrated their divine abilities. 
Rather, the Servant of the Lord is — fulfilling the OT prophecies by his healing 
miracles (Matt. 8:16, 17; cf. Isa. 53:4). The healings do not prove Jesus to be the 
Christ, but viewed against their OT background they are seen to be Christ’s act of 
obedience and thus a necessary element in his messianic work. This conviction 
lies behind the many summaries (Matt. 4:24; Mk. 1:34; 3:10 and passim) which 
emphasize that all who turn to Jesus find healing — a further echo of the OT (cf. 
Isa. 53). This is why he has power to heal on the — Sabbath (Matt. 12:10; Mk. 
3:2; Lk. 6:7; 13:14). In taking up the cause of the helpless Jesus proves himself to 
be the — Servant of God (Matt. 8:7; 19:2). 

(b) In Mk. 6:5, 6 there is the remarkable statement that in Nazareth Jesus could 
do no mighty work. It is quite clear from most of the detailed accounts of healing 
that — faith on the part of those concerned is already present before they are 
healed by Jesus (cf. Matt. 8:8—10, 13; 9:27 ff.; 15:21 ff.; Lk. 8:43 ff.; cf. Mk. 5:34 
and passim). Thus after the disciples’ failure to heal the lunatic boy (Matt. 17:16), 
the father confidently turned to Jesus for help, and his faith was vindicated, for the 
lad was healed (v. 18). Healing is faith’s reward, because faith is confident that 
even when men have done their utmost and failed, the power of God in Christ is 
inexhaustible. Thus healing does not initiate faith but assumes it (cf. Mk. 6:5 f.). 
It is not that faith is the power which effects the miracle; it is rather preparedness 
for the miracle. 

(c) Christ healed men not only of bodily infirmities but also of demon possession 
(Matt. 8:16; Mk. 1:34; 3:10f.; Lk. 4:40 f. and passim), here too revealing his 
messianic claims. Satanic powers are subject to his power and word, and by 
exercising power over the demons through his word, he 1s utterly different from the 
ordinary exorcists of his time. As he casts out — demons, we glimpse the splendour 
of Christ the King. 

(d) Jesus also gave his disciples a share in his healing power (Matt. 10:1, 8; Mk. 
6:13; Lk. 9:1, 6). They entered into his work not only in the sense of teaching his 
doctrine, but in the sense of being empowered for the same messianic works which 
he himself performed. For this, implicit faith is required (Matt. 17:16 ff.), the faith 
_ by which the early church experienced the enabling Christ in its midst (cf. Acts 
5:16; 8: 7 and passim). In the healings wrought by the disciples the church was 
given a token of the active presence of its exalted Lord. 

2. To summarize: In the NT the stories of healing are not told in order to 
‘prove’ the messiahship of Jesus by demonstrating his power over natural laws. 
“The miracle does not consist in the breaking of the causal nexus of natural law. 
This does not come within the purview of the NT. The real miracle is victory in 
the conflict with forces which struggle for mastery over this cosmos. The NT 
thus looks into the depths of world occurrence” (H. W. Beyer, TDNT III 131). 
Although the healing miracles, in common with all the miracles in the Gospels, are 
repeatedly given prominence as outworkings of the Lord’s power (cf. Matt. 14:14; 
19:2, where therapeuein replaces didaskein), nevertheless they are not regarded as 
having any importance in their own right. 

F. Graber, D. Miller 



ae idopal (iaomai), to cure, to restore; iagic (iasis), healing; 

| IGOLAl | : te ee ee 
Sigua (iama), healing; iatpdc (iatros), physician. 
CL iaomai (from Homer onwards), to cure, restore, is used in the literal sense as a 

medical term, and also metaphorically and figuratively: to free from an evil, 
e.g. ignorance (Sallust) or some intellectual shortcoming; to heal psychological 
illnesses etc. Likewise the nouns iasis and iama, healing, and iatros, physician, are 
used both literally and metaphorically. 

1. The various types of medical treatment throughout human history can be 
properly understood only when one is acquainted with the ideas which have been 
held regarding the different causes of sickness (—~ weakness), i.e. what has to be 
fought against in healing. Apart from external injuries, where the cause is obvious, 
sicknesses are for primitive man not simply physiological phenomena, the causes 
and nature of which can be investigated, and which can therefore possibly be cured. 
Originally sicknesses were ascribed to attacks by external forces (by gods, demons, — 
sin, — guilt, — magical powers such as a—>curse, the ban etc.). To bring about acure 
a number of methods were employed: exorcisms (to cast out demons); various 
magical practices (the earliest beginnings of medicine); influences based on sug- 
gestion; or prayers and offerings, in an attempt to appease the deity. Both the 
sickness and its cure, therefore, were believed to arise from the intervention of a 
superior will, though this is not to say that the origins of rational medical treatment 
are to be found only in magic and enchantment. As early as the 3rd cent. B.c. the 
science of medicine reached its first flowering among the ancient Egyptians. But 
the honour of having set medical science upon an empirical and rational basis 
belongs above all to the Greeks (cf. F. Bichsel, TDNT III 195). Already from 
Homer we learn of the high esteem enjoyed by physicians in general (cf. I/. 2, 514), 
especially those of Egypt (cf. Od. 4, 220-233), though admittedly he had not reached 
the point of distinguishing clearly between medicine and magic. The oath of 
Hippocrates (born 460 B.c.) is a remarkable testimony to the fact that, as medicine 
in Greece came into its own, there gradually arose a specific code of ethics among 
physicians (for text and literature see F. Biichsel, TDNT III 196; C. F. H. Henry, 
ed., Baker’s Dictionary of Christian Ethics, 1973, 291). 

2. It remains true, however, that in the ancient world no clear line of demarca- 
tion can be drawn between rational and magical ideas of reality. In his attempts 
to cope with life, the man of antiquity came face to face with an immense variety 
of powers, so complex as to be generally beyond the grasp of our minds, which 
think exclusively in scientific terms. It follows that the relationship between the 
origins of medicine as a rational science, and “‘supernatural’’ healings attributed to 
superior powers, is inextricably involved. Thus we constantly find that among 
different peoples special healing deities were worshipped (in earlier Gk. times e.g. 
Apollo, later Asclepius; in Egypt e.g. Imhotep; in the Assyrian—Babylonian world 
Tammuz). Temple-like edifices were built to them and used as healing centres (e.g. 
the celebrated Asclepieion of Cos or the temple of Epidauros), where priests acted 
as physicians and ran what can only be described as a healing business. All kinds of 
offerings were presented, not merely in order to obtain a cure but also as thanks- 
giving for miraculous cures already obtained. In the ancient world there were 
numerous accounts of miraculous healing, often embellished to the point of being 



grotesque. Anything was possible. We even read of tricks being played on the deity 
in order to obtain a cure, whereupon the deity would avenge himself with a puni- 
tive miracle. 

Kings were originally chief priests as well, and as such had the gift of healing 
(cf. the royal customs which still obtained in the Middle Ages, e.g. Shakespeare’s 
Macbeth IV, 3, or Philip the Fair of France: ““The King touches you, God heals 
you’’). It is therefore no surprise to read, e.g., that the Emperor Vespasian healed 
the blind and lame by his touch and with the use of spittle (TDNT III 198). 

F. Biichsel sums up the situation when he says that “‘the gods are doctors and 
saviours both in a cosmic and universal sense and also in an inward sense. The 
typically Greek thought form of analogy leads here to a particular conception of 
divine rule in the world. The gods become mediators between Zeus and men, and 
as such they dispense healing”’ (ibid.). 

oT |. In the LXX iaomai stands frequently for the Heb. rapa’, to heal, cure. It is 
characteristic of faith in Yahweh that he alone is the source of all healing (“‘I, 
Yahweh, am your healer”, Exod. 15:26; cf. 2 Ki. 5:7). To turn to a physician (let 
alone another deity) for healing could on occasion be unbelief, distrust of Yahweh, 
and an offence against the First Commandment (2 Ki. 1; and 2 Chr. 16:12). As 
sicknesses come from Yahweh himself, he is the only one who can bind up and 
heal (Job 5:18). For the same reason the OT knows little of the distinction between 
external ills with an obvious cause (injuries sustained through accident, in war, 
from animals’ bites, etc.), and other ills arising from within (cf. CL above, 1). In 
every aspect of his life man is dependent on Yahweh alone. This does not mean 
that demons and other powers have nothing to do with sickness. Rather they are 
thought of as being in God’s service (cf. Exod. 12:23; Hab. 3:5 and passim). 

This view of sickness and healing as marks of Yahweh’s visitation or of his 
renewed favour often brings a man — particularly the devout man — into grievous 
inward conflict (cf. the Book of Job and the Psalms, e.g. Pss. 38; 51; and especially 
88). This can lead to rebellion against Yahweh, when the malady is felt to be 
undeserved (Ps. 73:21; Job 9:17 ff.). And yet the devout man turns in prayer, 
lamentation and thanks to God alone as the only one who can grant him healing 
(Ps. 30:3; 103:3; cf. Wis. 16:12). 

In spite of this radical attitude to sickness and healing, there are some passages 
which indicate the use of medical treatment (e.g. | Ki. 17:21; 2 Ki. 4:34; 5:13 ff; 
20:7), though the means used here by the prophets are seldom “‘medical’’ as we 
understand the word. These are miraculous cures, carried out in reliance upon the 
healing power of Yahweh. 

In the OT the — priest is not regarded as a healer. His function was restricted 
to that of a medical officer of health who ascertained that healing had taken place 
(Lev. 13 f.). The earlier books contain very few references to physicians (cf. Gen. 
50:2; Isa. 3:7; Jer. 8:22). These probably go back to Egyptian or later to Greek 
influences. This situation changed at a much later period (cf. especially Sir. 38). 
But here too, even though the work of a physician is regarded in a positive light, 
he is God’s servant in the strictest sense. It is God who appoints him and through 
prayer grants him wisdom for his work (vv. | f.; 9-14). An important element in 
the OT understanding of sickness and healing is the idea that bodily sickness is 



very closely connected with sin and is therefore a manifestation of God’s wrath 
against specific transgressions (Ps. 32:1 ff.; 38:3 ff.; 39 f. and passim). Here healing 
becomes a picture of forgiveness, of God’s mercy, of his nearness (Isa. 6:10; 
Ps. 30:3; 41:5; 103:3 and passim). | 

2. In Judaism, too, medicine was generally held in considerable suspicion, 
although we do read of rabbis who were also physicians. Judaism shared the ideas 
which were widespread in relation to miraculous healings. Incantations, invoca- 
tions and other practices (e.g. the use of spittle in healing) still play a large part (cf. 
SB I 627; If 15, 17; [IV 527 ff.). With few exceptions, the rabbis themselves do not 
appear in tradition as miraculous healers. “‘Most closely related historically to the 
NT tradition’ are perhaps ‘“‘the old biblical materials (Abraham as a miracle- 
worker in the apocryphal Genesis 20:21 ff.) and the Rab. miracles stories of the 
Tannaitic period (e.g. R. Hanina ben Dosa according to Ber. 34b)” (O. Michel 
BHHW II 679; cf. Moore, Judaism, I, 177f.; II, 235 f.). 

NT In the NT iaomai occurs 26 times, of which 20 are in the Synoptic Gospels and 

Acts; iasis 3 times, all in Lk.; iatros 6 times, all in the Synoptic Gospels, 
except Col. 4:14 [‘‘ Luke the beloved physician’’]; iama 3 times, all in | Cor. 12. It is 
clear from these figures that, apart from iama, this word-group occurs chiefly in the 
Synoptic Gospels and esp. in Lk. (20 times out of a total 38). 

1. The use of iaomai corresponds in the Gospels and in Acts to that of — 
therapeuo. Hence, the remarks made under therapeud on the theological assessment 
of healing miracles apply here also. The cures wrought by Jesus and then by his 
disciples are signs of the incoming — kingdom of God (Lk. 9:2, 11, 42; Acts 10:38 
and passim) and are thus the fulfilment of OT prophecy (cf. Isa. 35:3-6; 61:1 f. etc.). 
‘“‘For the Evangelist Jesus is the one upon whom God’s Spirit rests, and who brings 
in the eschatological time of salvation; in his liberating and redeeming work he 
fulfils God’s will, which has already been declared by the prophets . . . in Scripture. 
A general amnesty for debtors and prisoners, as in the year of release, becomes a 
picture of the ministry of Jesus’ (O. Michel, BHHW II 679 f.). 

This is not to deny that the NT shares the view of sickness which was common 
at that time (cf. Lk. 13:11; Acts 12:23 and passim). As we saw under CL and oT, the 
miraculous cures wrought by Jesus are not without parallels in the extra-biblical 
world. In the opinion of many scholars the deeds reported of Jesus and his disciples 
are not always free from embellishments and accretions of later miraculous detail 
(cf. Mk. 5:1 ff.; Lk. 22:51; Acts 12:23; 5:15 f. and passim; or the heightened 
account in Mk. 5:21-43 par. Matt. 9:18—26, Lk. 8:40—56; Lk. 7:11 ff.; Jn. 11:1 ff.). 
But even though the NT records of healing show all the familiar features (e.g. the 
helplessness of physicians, Mk. 5:26 ff.; the instantaneous nature of the miracle, Lk. 
8:47; the patient’s ability to carry his own mattress home, Jn. 5:8 ff., etc.), a com- 
parison with the romantically embellished stories found e.g. in the Gospel of Thomas 
or in the apocryphal Acts of the Apostles reveals a striking fact. The NT accounts 
are simple and straightforward. They do not aim to glorify some miracle-worker of 
the ancient world, or even miracles as such. In most cases, the original account of 
what took place is still very much in mind, and such events are viewed in the light of 
Christ’s message. Farce, magic and sensationalism are absent. The healings 
wrought by Jesus are determined by his—» word and — faith (Matt. 8:8, 13; 



15:28; Lk. 7:7 and passim). They are therefore (for all their similarities) funda- 
mentally different from the healings in the rest of the ancient world. Jesus also 
breaks through the narrow Jewish doctrine of retribution (i.e. that every sickness 
must be the result of a certain — sin; cf. Jn. 9:2 ff.), without thereby denying the 
basic connection between sin and sickness (e.g. Jn. 5:13 f.; cf. Jas. 5:16). The focal 
point of all the healings is not the miracle but the healer himself, whose authori- 
tative preaching has brought in the dawn of the new age (cf. the repeated state- 
ment in Lk. that Jesus healed all: Lk. 6:19; Acts 10:38). “In all the Gospels the 
power of Jesus is described as an obvious fact, self-evident both to his disciples 
and to his opponents. What then is meant by the express statement that a special 
power came forth from him (Mk. 5:30 ff.; Lk. 6:19)? This idea, which has close 
Hellenistic associations, is meant realistically and is clearly connected with a 
certain view of the Spirit” (O. Michel, op. cit., 680 f.). 

Even though our rational thinking finds certain difficulties in regard to healing 
miracles, we should beware of resting content with merely psychological explana- 
tions. With our modern historical approach we are in danger of missing the real 
force of the language and of the claims which it makes. For as a rule the real point 
of a miracle is not the miracle itself but what it reveals of Jesus. “‘In spite of every 
analogy, the miraculous healings of Jesus thus occupy a unique position in religious 
history. They are inseparably connected with the uniqueness of Jesus and with His 
unparalleled sense of mission” (A. Oepke, 7 DNT III 213). 

2. In 1 Cor. 12 the word iama, healing, occurs 3 times as Paul enumerates the 
various spiritual gifts. All the apostles were given gifts of healing as well as being 
commissioned to preach the gospel (therapeuo is used in Matt. 10:18; Mk. 6:13; 
Lk. 9:1; iaomai in Lk. 9:2; see also Acts, e.g. 2:43). But Paul here makes it clear 
that healing can also be carried out by individuals whom God has expressly 
endowed with a spiritual gift for this purpose. The gift of healing is one function 
among others, all of which are co-ordinated with one another in the church as the 
body of Christ. F. Graber, D. Miiller 

[omic byinc (hygiés), healthy, well; byiaivw (hygiaind), make 

| well again, cure. 

CL hygiés (from Homer onwards) means: (a) lit. healthy (in body), strong, active, 
sound; (b) metaphorically of good understanding, sensible, shrewd, sober, of 

good judgment. Likewise hygiain6d means to be healthy, to be of sound mind, to be 

shrewd or sensible. From Aristotle onwards hygiaine was often used in the sense of 


In Gk. literature (as early as Homer and especially later in Gk. popular philoso- 
phy) Aygiés or hygiaind (frequently in conjunction with Jogos) is commonly used 
to describe an idea or opinion as judicious, sensible, i.e. ““healthy’’ as opposed to 
being false or “‘sick” (cf. e.g. Plato, Phdr. 242c; Epictetus 1, 11, 28; 3, 9, 5; Philo, 
Abr. 223; 275). 

OT In the LXX hygiés and hygiaino (about 50 times) are used only in a direct sense 
(e.g. Gen. 37:14; Isa. 38:21; cf. Lev. 13:10 ff. for mihyah, growth of new flesh. 
Generally hygiaine stands for the Heb. Sa/ém, used as in later profane Gk. as a 


greeting in the sense, “Peace be to you” (1 Sam. 25:6; 2 Sam. 18:28; 20:9; also 
Gen. 29:6; 43:27 f.; Exod. 4:18; cf. 2 Macc. 9:19 and passim). 

NT Of the 23 passages in which hygiés or hygiainod are found in the NT, no less 
than 12 are in the Gospels and 9 in the Pastoral Epistles. Otherwise the word 

group is found in the rest of the NT only in Acts 4:10 and 3 Jn. 2. | 

|. In the Gospels and Acts hygiés and hygiaino are used without exception in the 

literal sense of healthy, well. 

(a) Generally the well-being is the result of a healing miracle (~ miracle; cf. 
therapeuo and iaomai) wrought by Jesus (Matt. 15:31; 12:13; Lk. 7:10; Jn. 5:9 ff.) 
or the disciples (Acts 4:10). — Faith occasions the saving act and so the healing. 
According to Mk. 5:25 ff., this faith was not always free from magical elements, 
but the word of Jesus, ‘““Go in peace, and be healed [hygiés] of your disease’, 
confirms even this unusual miracle. 

In all these passages, however, hygiés and hygiaind do not denote merely a 
physically healthy condition. Anyone healed through meeting Jesus is a person 
healed in his entire being by the word of the messiah (Jn. 7:23), i.e. also saved from 
his sin (cf. Lk. 5:21 ff.). In the healing of the lame, the blind and the deaf (Matt. 
15:21; cf. Mk. 7:37; 8:23) the promise of God’s coming (Isa. 35:4 ff.) was ful- 
filled. In these passages, therefore, good health is not the result of medical treat- 
ment but indicates a more profound healing, i.e. it is a sign that the age of salvation 
has dawned. 

(b) As in the above passages, hygiainonta in Lk. 15:27 does not mean merely 
physical well-being (cf. 15:24). Having returned from this period of alienation and 
come home to his father’s house, the prodigal is re-instated to his original status as 
son, i.e. he has now become well. In Jesus and his healing word man encounters 
the Father running to meet him and is restored to full health. Thus when faced 
with those who object to his mingling with the outcasts of society, Jesus justifies 
his mission with the aphorism: “Those who are well [hygiainontes] have no need 
of a physician, but those who are sick’’ (Lk. 5:31). It is quite possible that Jesus is 
here adopting a popular saying in order to justify his behaviour and to show that 
he was acting as the messiah (cf. Mk. 2:17, where the word used is ischyontes, the 
strong). When Jesus called the Pharisees and scribes “‘those who are well’, he 
may not have intended it to be taken ironically. In this case he was not disputing 
their ““good health’, though it must now prove itself in a right attitude to the work 
of God in Christ (cf. Lk. 15:28-32), lest it degenerate into self-righteousness and 
is destroyed. ({Ed.] On the other hand an ironical meaning is a natural one in view 
of what is said about the religious leaders elsewhere in Lk. [5:17, 21, 30, 33; 6:2, 7; 
7:30, 36; 10:25-29; 11:37-54; 12:1; 13:33; 14:1 ff.; 15:2; 16:14; 17:20f.; 19: 
39].) _ 

2. The metaphorical meaning is found in the Pastoral Epistles, where hygiaind 
and hygiés are characteristic terms for “(to be) sound’. Thus Aygiainein (en) té 
pistei, to be sound in the faith (Tit. 1:13; 2:2); hygiainousa didaskalia, sound 
doctrine (1 Tim. 1:10; 2 Tim. 4:3; Tit. 1:9; 2:1); Aygiainontes logoi, the sound 
words of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. 6:3; 2 Tim. 1:13; cf. Jogos hygiés, Tit. 2:8). In this 
usage the influence of Greek popular philosophy upon the Pastoral Epistles is felt 
(see above CL). Such a usage is completely absent from the LXX. In the Pastoral 


Epistles, however, hygiaind, which is nowhere used in the rest of the NT in associa- 
tion with “‘word”’ or “‘doctrine’’, should not be taken to imply that the message of 
Christ simply has to be made acceptable to the intellect. Rather, problems such as 
heresy are to be solved by an appeal to the fixed norms of Pauline doctrine (1 Tim. 
1:6 ff.; 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:3 f. and passim; cf. 1 Tim. 1:1 ff.; Tit. 1:1-3 etc.). “The 
church uses doctrine as such to combat the ‘enthusiasm’ of the gnostics, and sound 
doctrine, handed down in its purity, to combat their false doctrine” (W. Schmithals, 
RGG?® V 145). This approach, however, reveals the change which has taken place 
in the way the message is understood. Whereas in the earlier Pauline epistles the 
gospel is viewed as something dynamic (cf. his dialectic of wisdom and foolishness), 
the Pastoral Epistles see it as a fixed body of received doctrine which can be used 
as a clear-cut standard to counter heresy. ([Ed.] This must not, however, be over- 
stated, for in the same letter which made use of this dialectic Paul could also 
claim to be handing on the tradition which he received as the basis of faith [1 Cor. 
15:8 ff.; cf. 1:18 ff.].) In the Pastoral Epistles false doctrine is opposed not by 
detailed specific refutation, but with the simple assertion that it does not conform 
to the doctrinal tradition and so is not ‘“‘healthy”’ or ‘‘sound’’. Hence, to be “‘sound 
in faith’ (Tit. 2:2) means to hold the received apostolic doctrine as normative and 

The important place occupied by Aygiaind and hygiés in the Pastoral Epistles 
has often figured largely in the debate as to the authorship of these epistles (cf. the 
excursus on | Tim. 1:10 in M. Dibelius and H. Conzelmann, The Pastoral Epistles 
[Hermeneia] 1974; and the survey by W. Kasch in EXL III, 79 f. On the question of 
authorship see further C. Spica, Les Epitres Pastorales, 1947, xxi—ccviii; D. Guthrie, 
The Pastoral Epistles, 1957, 11-53; J. N. D. Kelly, The Pastoral Epistles, 1963, 
1-36.) D. Miiller 
— Blind, + Body, ~ Deaf, Dumb, — Flesh, — Lame, — Leprosy, — Miracle, 
— Weakness, Sickness, — Work 

(a). P. E. Adolph, “Healing, Health’, ZPEB III 54-58; H. J. Blair, ‘“‘Spiritual Healing. An 
Enquiry”, EQ 30, 1958, 147-51; C. J. Brim, Medicine in the Bible, 1936; E. Andrews, ‘‘Healing, 
Gifts of’’, /DB II 548 f.; J. P. Baker, Salvation and Wholeness, 1973; H. W. Beyer, therapeia etc., 
TDNT Ill 128-32; T. W. Crafer, The Healing Miracles in the Book of Acts, 1939; F. N. Davey, 
‘Healing in the New Testament’, in The Miracles and the Resurrection, SPCK Theological 
Collections 3, 1964, 50-63; V. Edmunds and G. C. Scorer, Some Thoughts on Faith Healing, 1956; 
H. W. Frost, Miraculous Healing, 1951; E. M. B. Green, The Meaning of Salvation, 1965, 218-25; 
J. A. Hardon, “The Miracle Narratives in the Acts of the Apostles”, CBQ 16, 1954, 303-18; R. K. 
Harrison, “‘Medicines of the Bible’, Canadian Association of Medical Students and Internes 
Journal, 10, 1, 1951, 17-20; and ‘“‘Healing, Health’’, /DB II 541-48; K. Heim, Jesus the Lord, 
1959; H. J. Held, ‘‘Matthew as Interpreter of the Miracle Stories’’, in G. Bornkamm, G. Barth 
and H. J. Held, Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew, 1960, 165-299; W. K. Hobart, The 
Medical Language of St. Luke, 1882 (but on this subject see also A. Harnack, Luke the Physician, 
1907; and H. J. Cadbury, Style and Literary Method of Luke, 1920); D. Johnson, Jn the Service 
of Medicine, 1968; R. A. Lambourne, Community, Church and Healing, 1963; M. J. Langford, 
“The Problem of the Meaning of ‘Miracle’”’, Religious Studies 7, 1971, 43-52; H. van der 
Loos, The Miracles of Jesus, NovT Supplements 9, 1965; J. S. McEwen, “‘The Ministry of 
Healing’’, S/T 7, 1954, 133-52; H. N. and A. L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, 1952; F. Mussner, 
The Miracles of Jesus: An Introduction, 1970; H. P. Newsholme, Health, Disease and Integration, 
1929; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 1, 272-79; A. Oepke, TDNT III 194-215; A. 
Richardson, The Miracle Stories of the Gospels, 1941; A. Schlemmer, Faith and Medicine, 1957; 
A. R. Short, The Bible and Modern Medicine, 1953; C. R. Smith, A Physician Examines the 



Bible, 1950; R. Swinburne, The Concept of Miracle, 1970; M. F. Unger, ‘‘Divine Healing’’, Bibli- 
otheca Sacra 128, 1971, 234-44; A. Vogtle, “The Miracles of Jesus against their Background’’, 
in U. J. Schultz, ed., Jesus in His Time, 1971, 96-105; L. D. Weatherhead, Psychology, Religion 
and Healing, revised ed. 1954; J. Wilkinson, ‘“‘A Study of Healing in the Gospel according to 
John”, SJT 20, 1967, 442-61; “‘Healing in the Epistle of James”, SJT 24, 1971, 326-45; and “The 
Mission Charge to the Twelve and Modern Medical, Missions’”’ SJT 27, 1974, 313-28. H. W. 
Wolff, Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974, 143-48. 

(b). K. Beth, ‘‘Heilung’’, RGG? III 194 ff.; W. Beyer, Gibt es Heilungen von korperlicher Krankheit 
durch Geisteskraft ?, 1921; H. Doebert, Das Charisma der Krankenheilung, 1960; A. Dupont- 
Sommer, “‘Exorcisme et guérisons dans les écrits de Qoumran’’, Vetus Testament Supplements 7, 
Congress Volume, 1959, 246 ff.; F. Fenner, Die Krankheit im Neuen Testament, 1930; H. Greeven, 
Krankheit und Heilung, 1948; H. Haag, ed., Bibel-Lexikon, 1956, 963 f., 1724 ff.; A. Harnack, 
‘‘Medizinisches in der altesten Kirchengeschichte”’, TU 8, 4, 1892; J. Hempel, “* ‘Ich bin der Herr 
dein Arzt’ (Exod. 15, 26)”, TLZ 82, 1957, 809-26; ‘‘Heilung als Symbol und Wirklichkeit im bibli- 
schen Schrifttum’’, Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen Philosophisch- 
historische Klasse, 1958, 3, 237-314; J. Hempel and O. Michel, ‘“‘Heilen”, BHHW II 678 ff.; P. 
Humbert, “‘Maladie et médicine dans |’Ancien Testament”, Revue d’Histoire et de Philosophie 
Religieuses, 41, 1964, 1-29; W. Kasch, ‘‘Pastoralbriefe’’, EKL III 79 ff.; J. Leipoldt, Von Epidauros 
bis Lourdes, 1957; J. Ott, ‘““Die Bezeichnung Christi als jatros in der urchristlichen Literatur”, Der 
Katholik 90, 1910, 454 ff.; J. Scharbert, Der Schmerz im Alten Testament, 1955; F. J. Schierse, 
‘*Hat Krankheit einen Sinn ?’’, Stimmen der Zeit 84, 1959, 241-55; W. Schmithals, ‘‘Pastoralbriefe’’, 
RGG? V, 145. 

Hear, Obey 

The word hear embraces both physical hearing and the apprehension of something 
with the mind. Similarly, the Gk. vb. akoué and the noun akoé, as used in the NT, 
can have both meanings, though originally these words denoted only the former. 
Various compounds are used to denote apprehension with the mind. eisakou6é and 
epakouo stress attentive listening, while the emphatic forms hypakouo and hypakoé 
(lit. hear beneath) mean to obey and obedience. The linguistic and conceptual 
relationship between akouod and hypakouo recurs in Old and Middle Eng. in the 
use of the same word for both hear and obey. It can still be traced in some modern 
languages, e.g. Ger. héren and gehorchen. The former includes the latter, and in 
some contexts can be substituted for it. Conversely, parakouod and parakoé (lit. 
hear beside) denote inattentive hearing, missing, not hearing, and thus disobedience. 

[dxoto akovw (akoud), hear, listen, attend, perceive by hearing; 
axon (akoé), hearing, the ear, a thing heard, message, 
teaching, report, rumour; axpoatyc¢ (akroatés), hearer; eigakov@ (eisakoud), 
obey, pass. to be heard; éxaxovw (epakouo), listen to, hearken to; émax poaopal 
(epakroaomai), listen attentively; 2a pakotw (parakou6), fail to hear, take no heed; 

mapakoy (parakoé), disobedience; év@ti¢w (endtizo), pay attention to, hear. 

CL 1. akoud (Homer on) means to hear and refers primarily to the perception of 

sounds by the sense of hearing. The person or thing heard is in the acc.; the 
person from whom something is heard is in the gen. or else is indicated by the 
preps. apo, para or ek. An impersonal obj. can also be in the gen. Hearing, however, 
covers not only sense perception but also the apprehension and acceptance by the 
mind of the content of what is heard. This led to differences of linguistic usage 
which are discussed below in connection with Heb. Sama‘ and which also occur in 
secular Gk. 



The related noun akoé (attested from Homer on) means: (a) hearing, the sense 
of hearing; (b) the act of hearing; (c) the organ of hearing, the ear; (d) the content 
of hearing, the message. 

2. Hearing plays a part in every religion. The general tendency of the Gk. and 
Hel. world, however, was to stress the seeing of the divinity (cf. W. Michaelis, 
horad, TDNT V 320 f.). It is seldom that one meets in the apocalyptic literature of 
Hel. mysticism (Apuleius, Corpus Hermeticum, 2nd or 3rd cents. A.D.) hearing as a 
means through which revelation has been received. On the other hand, the idea 
that the gods hear and listen is not foreign to paganism. We read of the ears of the 
gods, and the adj. epékoos, listening, answering, is applied to the divinity on many 
Hel. inscriptions. 

oT 1. In the LXX akouo or akoé stands consistently for Heb. sama‘. It shares the 

shades of meaning of the Heb. vb. Here too the primary meaning is that of 
sense perception (e.g. the hearing of a trumpet, 2 Sam. 15:10). However, appre- 
hension is immediately involved as soon as one receives a statement, piece of news 
or message (Gen. 14:14). Apprehension demands acceptance, listening (Gen. 4:23; 
23:11), understanding (Gen. 11:7; 42:3), and attention to the thing heard (“‘Listen 
to...” Gen. 3:17; 23:16; Exod. 24:7). Hence, Sama‘ acquired the meaning of 
obey. sama‘ in this sense is often rendered in the LXX by the emphatic compounds 
eisakouo, listen, obey (e.g. Gen. 42:21 f.; Exod. 6:12, 30), epakouod, listen (and 
answer), obey (Jdg. 2:17; cf. 1 Macc. 10:38), and — hypakouo, obey. The noun 
akoé (Heb. §*mi‘ah or Séma‘) denotes the act of hearing (Ps. 17[18]:44), but mostly 
the content of a message (cf. Exod. 23:1; 1 Sam. 2:24; Isa. 53:1; Jer. 10:22). On 
God’s hearing see 3 below. 

2. (a) In biblical revelation hearing has a much greater significance than in the 
Gk. or Hel. worlds. For God meets man in his word, and man therefore is charged 
with hearing God’s word. This does not exclude God’s revelation in the visible 
sphere; the mental process is not to be separated from the sense perception. Two 
examples help to clarify this. God revealed himself to Moses in the burning thorn 
bush (Exod. 3:1 ff.), and in the vision which constituted his call Isaiah saw Yahweh 
in the temple surrounded by the seraphim singing their praises (Isa. 6:1 ff.). But 
here, as in other cases of the visible revelation of God’s commission, it is connected 
with the prophetic mission. It takes place through the word, and must be heard and 
followed. Likewise, the visions which are frequently described in the prophetic 
writings (e.g. Amos 7-9; Jer. 1:11 ff.) require interpretation. Here too seeing and 
hearing are a unity. The prominence of hearing in the OT is demonstrated by the 
frequency of the phrases, n°um YHWH (thus says the Lord) and way°hi d*bar 
YHWH (the word of the Lord came). Readiness to hear on the part of those who 
receive the revelation is expressed in 1 Sam. 3:10: “‘Speak, for thy servant hears”’ 
(cf. O. Procksch, leg6, TDNT IV 91-100). 

(b) Moses, “with whom the Lord used to speak face to face’’ (Exod. 33:11), 
lived in the memory of his people as the model bearer of the divine, verbal revela- 
tion. The Decalogue (— Command) was given to Moses according to Exod. 20:1 ff. 
and Deut. 5:6 ff. Deut. 5:1 is introduced by the solemn “Hear, O Israel’. This 
5¢ma‘ yisr@’él also stands as an urgent warning before the command to love God 
(Deut. 6:4 ff.). Alongside the warning however, we frequently find the complaint 



that Israel has not heard, but has rebelled. God has not given to Israel “‘a mind to 
understand, or eyes to see, or ears to hear’’ (Deut. 29:4). 

The prophetic revelation presupposed that the content of God’s will was already 
known (Mic. 6:8). As bearers of the divine revelation, the prophets warned the 
people, the nations and even heaven and earth to hear God’s word which was 
coming through themselves (Isa. 1:2, 10; Jer. 2:4; 7:2; 9:20 [MT 9:19]; Mic. 1:2). 
But equally we hear them complaining that Israel had not heard the voice of its 
God, nor was willing to do so (Hos. 9:17; Jer. 7:13; Ezek. 3:7). Thus the pre- 
exilic prophets, in particular, became preachers of — judgment. God lets his 
judgment fall on a people that will not hear; nor is he any longer willing to hear 
this people (Isa. 1:15; cf. Ezek. 8:18). Part of this judgment was the hardening that 
Isaiah was to bring upon the people. They were to be unreceptive to God’s revela- 
tion: ‘““Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive”’ 
(Isa. 6:9 ff.). In the catastrophes which overtook Israel, culminating in the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, the post-exilic prophets saw God’s 
judgment on the people for their unwillingness to hear (Zech. 7:8—14). The prayers 
of confession of the returning exiles (Ezr. 9; Neh. 9) show that a wide circle of the 
people shared this view. 

Thus Israel became the people of the — law who wished to render the obedience 
they owed to God by the painstaking fulfilment of his will down to the last detail. 
For this reason the most important part of the tradition was the Torah, the Law, 
contained in the Five Books of Moses. Here the strongest emphasis is given to the re- 
lation between hearing and doing (Exod. 19:5, 8; Deut. 28:1; 30:11-14). As the 
divinely commissioned bearers of revelation, the prophets stood beside the law at the 
centre of religious faith. ‘“The law and the prophets”’ is in the NT a comprehensive 
description of the OT writings. To hear them is the task of the pious Israelite (cf. 
Matt. 22:40; Lk. 16:29). The prophetic writings particularly served to feed the 
messianic hope. In later Judaism, especially in the apocalyptic literature connected 
with the book of Daniel (2 Esd., Ad. Dan. etc.), the era of messianic salvation was 
depicted in increasingly glorious colours (— Jesus Christ). The Qumran texts also 
illustrate the strength of this hope. 

(c) The tendency to listen to the law was strengthened in later Judaism by the 
rise of the synagogues (—> Church, Synagogue), with their regular — Sabbath worship 
alongside the sacrificial worship offered in the Jerusalem Temple. The synagogue 
became the focal point of the Jewish communities beyond the borders of Palestine. 
The recitation of the Shema (consisting of the extracts Deut. 6:4-9; 11:13-21; 
Num. 15:37-41) had a fixed place in their worship. In addition the daily recitation 
of the Shema was for the pious Jew an obligation of faith and witness. In principle 
any suitably qualified member of the community was entitled to expound the law 
in the synagogue services. Nevertheless, the formation of the class of scribes 
(— Rabbis) is understandable. Their expositions of scripture were originally 
handed down orally but later from the 2nd cent. A.D. they were fixed in writing in 
the Mishnah and the Talmud (— Glossary of Technical Terms). Thus hearing 
acquired even greater significance in Judaism, especially since in the rabbinic view 
the time of revelation was over. Only one echo of revelation remained, the bat q6é/ 
(daughter of the voice), which God made use of from time to time, but which 
possessed no binding doctrinal authority for the rabbis (SB I 125 ff.). 



3. Just as men hear God, God hears men. It is in this way that the living God 
differs from idols which have ears but do not hear (Ps. 115; 135:17 etc.). Later 
Judaism continued this judgment (Wis. 15:15). So the Psalmists pray, ‘Incline thy 
ear to me, hear my words’ (Ps. 17:6; cf. 31:2; 86:1 etc.). And in the figurative | 
sense the OT often speaks of the ears of God who hears what men say (Num. 12:2) 
— the cry for help and also the grumbling of his people (Exod. 3:7; Num. 14:27). 
Alongside akoué the LXX often uses the emphatic eisakouo (e.g. Exod. 16:7, 8, 9, 12). 

Not only does God hear prayer, he also answers it. This too can be expressed 
by sama‘ and akouod (Ps. 29:10 LXX). But in these cases we more often find the 
LXX using the compounds eisakouo and epakouo. The latter is particularly frequent 
in the language of prayer and also as a rendering of Heb. ‘dndh, to answer, grant a 
request (cf. eisakouein for Heb. ‘dnah [e.g. Ps. 3:4; 19:1, 6, 9 LXX; Isa. 49:8]. 

enotizomai, pay attention to, hear, is derived from ous, ear. It is a biblical word- 
formation on the basis of Heb. he’®zin (e.g. Ps. 5:1[2]; 38:12[39:13]), give ear to, 
from the root ’zm in the hiph. Thus the OT contains a whole range of statements in 
which the pious Israelite expressed his certainty that God hears and answers prayer. 
It is put particularly beautifully in Ps. 94:9: ““He who planted the ear, does he not 
hear?’ On the other hand, man’s guilt can step between God and man and make 
God’s ear —> deaf, so that he does not hear (Isa. 59:1 f.). 

NT 1. The NT usage of akouo follows essentially that of secular Gk. and the LXX. 

We find it with the acc. in Matt. 7:24 (hear the word); with gen. in Matt. 2:9 
and Mk. 14:64 (hear the king, hear blasphemy); with apo in 1 Jn. 1:5; with ek in 
2 Cor. 12:6 (hear from him or me); with para in Jn. 8:40 (hear from God as 

The noun akoé denotes: (a) the sense of hearing (1 Cor. 12:17); (b) the act of 
hearing (2 Pet. 2:8; also Rom. 10:17; Gal. 3:2, 5, ex akoés pisteds, as the result 
of hearing in faith, so T. Zahn, J. A. Bengel and A. Schlatter); (c) the ear, especially 
in the plur. (e.g. Mk. 7:35; Acts 17:20); (d) in Matt. 4:24; 14:1 etc. akoé denotes 
the news (about Jesus). The logos akoés (1 Thess. 2:13; Heb. 4:2) is the word of 
proclamation, the message. In the quotation from Isa. 53:1 LXX reproduced in 
Rom. 10:16 akoé also means message. Hence the akoé pisteds (Rom. 10:17; Gal. 
3:2, 5) is the apostolic message which has faith as its content and is spoken and 
received as God’s word (1 Thess. 2:13). The intensive in the quotation from Isa. 
6:9 in Matt. 13:14 is a Hebraism: akoé akousete, by hearing you will hear. 

Of the compounds, eisakou6é is used of hearing (obeying) by men, 1 Cor. 14:21 
(in dependence on Isa. 28:11; Deut. 1:43; on God’s hearing see below, 5). parakouo 
(in secular Gk. from the 5th cent. B.c., rare in the LXX) means in Matt. 5:36 to 
fail to hear, leave unheeded (cf. Isa. 65:11 LXX). In Matt. 18:17 it means to refuse 
to hear, to be disobedient. The noun parakoé, disobedience, occurs once in Plato, 
never in the LXX, and otherwise only in post-Christian usage. It refers in Rom. 
5:19 to Adam’s disobedience to God; in 2 Cor. 10:6 to the Corinthians’ disobe- 
dience to Paul, and in Heb. 2:2 to human disobedience to the word of God spoken 
through angels. endtizomai has a similar meaning (cf. above oT 3), and occurs in 
Acts 2:14 of human hearing (cf. RSV “give ear to’’). The rare word epakroaomai 
(from Plato on, not in the LXX) means to listen to (Acts 16:25). The related noun 
akroatés, listener (from the Sth cent. B.c.; also Isa. 3:3; Sir. 3:29 LXX) occurs in 



Rom. 2:13 and Jas. 1:22, 23, 25, where the hearer of the law (or of the word) is 
contrasted with the doer. 

2. (a) The many shades of meaning of akoud become apparent when we ask the 
theological question how man hears the NT message. The content of this message 
is —> Jesus Christ, the messiah promised under the old — covenant. To those who 
believe in him are given the fullness of salvation and a new revelation which sur- 
passes that of the OT. This revelation which has been manifested in him is per- 
ceived not just through hearing but with all the senses (Jn. 1:14; 1 Jn. 1:1). Essen- 
tially, it is a question of hearing and seeing (— See, art. horad). Jesus pronounced 
a blessing on the eyes and ears of those who had become witnesses of the salvation 
longed for by the pious of former generations (Matt. 13:16 f.; Lk. 10:23 f.). To 
the disciples sent to him by the imprisoned Baptist Jesus said: ““Go and tell John 
what you hear and see” (Matt. 11:4 par. Lk. 7:22). Alongside his words stand 
Jesus’ mighty acts. On the mount of transfiguration Jesus’ disciples saw his hidden 
glory and heard the voice saying to them: “Listen to him” (Matt. 17:5 par. Mk. 
9:7, Lk. 9:35). The shepherds’ song of praise in the Christmas story, as well as the 
confession of the apostles before the Sanhedrin, referred to what they had heard and 
seen (Lk. 2:20; Acts 4:20). 

(b) Not only Jesus’ earthly appearance but also the events of Easter and — 
Pentecost are perceived by hearing and seeing. Paul’s crucial vision of Christ (1 
Cor. 15:9) is amplified by Acts 22:14, 15. Paul was to be a witness of what he had 
seen and heard. The gospels tell the same about the other disciples: seeing the risen 
Christ is bound up with hearing the apostolic commission which Jesus gave to his 
disciples (Matt. 28:18 ff.; Mk. 16:15; Lk. 24:46 ff.; Jn. 20:21; Acts 1:8). The 
events of Pentecost whose far-reaching effects in the Christian community we see 
in | Cor. 12-14 were perceived originally through seeing and hearing (Acts 2:33). 
Paul’s revelations and visions, mentioned in 2 Cor. 12:1 ff., are also related to this 
event. In a trance the apostle heard “‘things that cannot be told, which man may 
not utter’’ (v. 4). Hearing also plays an important part in the visions of Rev. (Rev. 
1:10; 5:11, 13 etc.). On the other hand, the mystery of our salvation is un- 
fathomable; what God has prepared for those who love him no eye has seen and 
no ear heard nor any human heart conceived (1 Cor. 2:9). 

(c) The message of Christ is grounded in a crucial revelatory event. The connec- 
tion with OT revelation is preserved: the gospel has been proclaimed in advance 
through the prophets in holy scripture (Rom. 1:2). For the receipt of the Christian 
message faith is required. But faith presupposes hearing, and this in turn rests on 
preaching (Rom. 10:14 ff.; cf. Ps. 19:4; Deut. 32:21; Isa. 65:1 f.). On the other 
hand, as Jn. 20:29 implies, seeing is not a necessary condition for faith. 

(d) The NT does not distinguish between Jesus’ word and that of the — apostles 
in the sense that “he who hears you hears me’”’ (Lk. 10:16; cf. Matt. 10:40; Jn. 
13:20; Gal. 4:14; and also Mk. 9:37; Matt. 18:5; Lk. 9:48). The apostles are 
fully authorized witnesses of Jesus. The word which Jesus spoke has been reliably 
handed on by those who heard it (Heb. 2:3). To hear the message is to hear Christ 
and to hear the word of truth (Eph. 1:13; 4:20 f.) or the word of God (Acts 13:7, 
44 etc.). Where this hearing leads to faith, — baptism is the natural consequence 
(Acts 16:32 f.; 18:8; 19:5). 

3. We also find in the NT the OT connection of hearing with doing. In the 


Sermon on the Mount Jesus appears as the expounder of the will of God revealed in 
the law. His word is more than the word which was spoken to the men of old (Matt. 
5:21). In his teaching the authority given to him is expressed. It is an authority 
which marks his essential difference from the scribes (Matt. 7:28 ff.; Mk. 1:22). 
Therefore, in the parable which concludes the Sermon on the Mount the Lord 
compares the man who hears and does his word with a man who builds his house 
on rock (Matt. 7:24 ff.). In Lk. 11:28 Jesus pronounces a blessing on those who 
~ hear and keep (phylassein, — Guard) his word. Jn. 10:16, 27 refer to the sheep 
who hear Jesus’ voice and follow it. In Rom. 2:13 Paul contrasts the doers of the 
law with the hearers (akroatai). The mere hearers are unbelieving Jews, who do not 
let the law point them to Christ; the doers, according to the context, are believing 
pagans who demonstrate that the works of the law are written in their hearts 
(2:14 f.; cf. Jer. 31:33). Similarly in Jas. 1:22 f. the doers of the word are contrasted 
with the hearers. For the NT understands — faith not merely as hearing but as 
obeying (— hypakouo, hypakoé). Doing the will of God, therefore, can only come 
about from this fundamental attitude of obedience. | 

({Ed.] In Mk. 12:29 f. Jesus cites the Shema (Heb. Sma‘, ‘‘Hear’’) or creed of 
Israel recited daily by the pious Jew which consisted of Deut. 6:4-9; 11 :13-21; 
Num. 15:37-41. The passages themselves declare that the Israelite was to be in daily, 
constant remembrance of his obligation to love God with his whole being. The 
words quoted by Jesus are: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 
and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, 
and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’’ The quotation largely follows 
the LXX, though ischys (strength) is substituted for dynamis (power) and the Heb. 
text has /ébab (heart) which is paraphrased in Mk. by two nouns kardia (heart) and 
dianoia (mind). Jesus quoted the Shema in response to a question by a scribe: 
“Which commandment is the first of all?’? (Mk. 12:28). Matt. 12:24-37 gives a 
parallel account of the same incident, though omitting Deut. 6:4. Moreover, ‘n 
both accounts Jesus immediately added of his own accord a second commandment 
which was not in the Shema but drawn from Lev. 19:18: ‘““The second is this, “You 
shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater 
than these” (Mk. 12:31; cf. Matt. 22:39 which adds “Gn these two commandments 
depend all the law and the prophets’”’ [v. 40]). Lk. 10: 25-40 also contains a discus- 
sion of the two great commandments which also brings together Deut. 6:5 and 
Lev. 19:18. But there are certain significant differences: the occasion is different; 
in Matt. and Mk. it is Jesus who brings the two OT passages together in response to 
the scribes’ question, whereas in Lk. it is a lawyer in response to Jesus’ question; 
in Matt. and Mk. the centre of interest is the summary of the law, whereas in Lk. 
it is the practical outworking of the law expressed in the parable of the Good 
Samaritan that is the centre of interest. Such considerations have led T. W. Manson, 
The Sayings of Jesus, 1949, 259 f., and C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gospel according to 
Saint Mark, 1959, 376, to conclude that the two accounts are not parallel or doublets 
but refer to different occasions. On the debate about the great commandment 
—> Command, art. entolé; —> Large, art. megas; — Love.) 

4. (a) Hearing the word does not always lead to faith, i.e. to the acceptance of the 
word of God (Mk. 4:16; Lk. 8:13). Understanding must be added to hearing if the 
sown seed of the word is to bear fruit (Matt. 13:23; 15:10). The contrary attitude 



which does not understand the word heard and will not accept it results eventually 
in hardening (—> Hard). Therefore we find repeatedly in the NT, especially with 
respect to the Jewish nation, references to the sentence of hardening pronounced in 
Isa. 6:9 ff. (cf. Matt. 13:13 ff. par. Mk. 4:12, Lk. 8:10; Jn. 12:40; Acts 28:27; 
Rom. 11:8). In Jn. the Jews are plainly told that such hearing is in reality no 
hearing (Jn. 5:37; 8:43). This is what Stephen meant when he described the judges 
at his trial as “‘uncircumcised in heart and ears’, and their subsequent behaviour 
bore out the accusation (Acts 7:51, 57). Even Jesus’ disciples were not protected 
against failure to understand and hear (Mk. 8:17f.). Similarly in Heb. believers 
are urgently warned, with reference to Ps. 95:8, against becoming hardened (Heb. 
3:7-11; 4:3-11). 

A contrast to this hardening is presented by the receptivity of those whose ears 
God has opened (Isa. 50:5) and who keep the word in a pure and good heart (Lk. 
8:15). It is only to this kind of hearing that the mystery of the kingdom of God is 
revealed (Matt. 13:11 par. Mk. 4:11, Lk. 8:10). But although such hearing and 
understanding are God’s gift, human activity is by no means excluded. We see this 
in the numerous and varied calls for attention: ‘““He who has ears to hear, let him 
hear” (Matt. 11:15; 13:9 par. Mk. 4:9, Lk. 8:8); ““Hear and understand”’ (Matt. 
15:10); ‘“Take heed what you hear’ (Mk. 4:24); ‘“‘He who has an ear, let him hear 
what the Spirit says to the churches”’ (Rev. 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22). 

(b) Jn. 5:25, 28 deals with hearing at the time of consummation; the dead in 
their graves will hear the voice of the Son of God, awakening some to the resurrec- 
tion of life and others to judgment. The raising of Lazarus, whom Jesus called out 
of his grave with a loud voice (Jn. 11:43), is the anticipation of this final event. 

5. Less is said in the NT about God’s hearing than in the OT. The ears of God 
are mentioned twice in references to OT passages: Jas. 5:4, cf. Isa. 5:9; and | Pet. 
3:12, cf. Ps. 34:16. Rev. 9:20 takes the statement that idols do not hear from the 
OT. But God hears those who are pious and do his will (Jn. 9:31). Believers may 
be confident that God hears their prayers when they are in accordance with his will 
(1 Jn. 5:14). Stephen’s speech (Acts 7:34 quoting Exod. 3:7) refers to Israel’s being 
heard in Egypt. epakouod occurs in the NT only in the quotation from the LXX 
of Isa. 49:8 (2 Cor. 6:2). eisakouo is used in the NT in the sense of to hear and 
answer only in the pass. In Lk. 1:13 and Acts 10:31 it refers to the hearing of the 
prayers of Zechariah and Cornelius. In Matt. 6:7 Jesus criticizes those who like the 
Gentiles hope to succeed in making their prayers heard by the multiplication of 
words. Heb. 5:7 deals with the hearing of Jesus’ prayers. On several occasions 
Jesus expressed the certainty that God hears prayer (Matt. 7:7-12; Lk. 11:5—13; 
Jn. 16:23 f.). Heb. 5:7f. speaks of the prayers Jesus offered “‘in the days of his 
flesh ... with loud cries and tears” (referring to Gethsemane, cf. Matt. 26:36—46 
par. Mk. 14:32-42, Lk. 22:40-46), adding that Jesus “‘was heard for his godly fear’. 
Heb. sees the answer to these prayers in Jesus’ exaltation as “‘the source of salvation 
to all who obey him’’ as high priest after the order of — Melchizedek (vv. 9 f.). 
This confirms the assurance, expressed in the story of Lazarus, that God always 
heard and answered Jesus (Jn. 11:41). Correspondingly, Jesus always heard God 
as his Father, and as mediator passed on the revelation which he had heard from 
his Father (Jn. 8:26, 40; 15:15). Christ’s relationship with his Father has its 
deepest roots in this mutual hearing. W. Mundle 



[  bmaxoio braKkovw@ (hypakoud), listen, obey; bxaKkoy (hypakoée), 
pai | obedience; banKooc (hypékoos), obedient. 
CL & OT The vb. hypakoud, to listen to, answer, obey (which is derived from akoud) 
was used in secular Gk. from Homer on with the dat. of the person or thing, 
and also (as in the LXX) with the gen. of the person. The specialized meaning to 
open (to answer a request for entrance) occurs in Xenophon, Plato and other 
writers. The noun hypakoé, obedience, is rare and appeared late in secular Gk. (6th 
cent. A.D.). The adj. hypékoos, obedient, is attested from the 5th cent. B.c. The 
LXX uses hypakouo mostly to render Heb. sama‘. Obedience is shown to men (Gen. 
16:2; 22:18), to wisdom (Sir. 4:15; 24:22), and to God (e.g. Jer. 3:13, 25). In Isa. 
50:2; 66:4 hypakouo translates Heb. ‘Gnadh, answer. In Isa. 65:24 (with the v./. 
ek-) it denotes God’s answer to human crying. The noun hypakoé also means an 
answer (2 Sam. 22:36, the only instance in the LXX). The adj. hypékoos, obedient 
is used in Deut. 20:11 of subject peoples, and in Prov. 4:3; 13:1 of ason’s obedience 
to his father. 

NT 1. In Acts 12:13 hypakoud means to open in the sense of “‘answering the door’’. 

Elsewhere the word group (vb. 21 times, noun 15, most frequently in Paul) 
denotes obedience. The pattern of this obedience is Jesus Christ of whom it is said 
that he was obedient unto death on the cross (Phil. 2:5, 8). Through his obedience, 
which stands in contrast to Adam’s disobedience, “‘the many” have been made 
righteous (Rom. 5:19). Heb. has a similar thought. Through his suffering Jesus 
learned obedience; thus he has become the source of eternal salvation to those 
who obey him (5:8 f.). His obedience to his Father does not exclude his being the 
Lord whom the demonic powers and the forces of nature obey (Mk. 1:27; 4:41 
par. Matt. 8:27, Lk. 8:25). 

The apostle Paul, on the other hand, sought to bring every thought captive in 
obedience to Christ; Christ is the highest authority over human reason (2 Cor. 
10:5). The obedience we render to Christ 1s the obedience of faith. As an apostle 
to whom has been committed the preaching of the glad good news Paul made it his 
aim to establish this obedience among the nations (Rom. 1:5; 16:26). He has this 
obedience in view in Rom. 15:18 and 16:19. It includes submission to the apostle 
through whom Christ speaks (2 Cor. 7:5; 13:3; 10:5 f.;.Phlm. 15). It is obedience 
to the preaching which brings righteousness (Rom. 6:16 f.), and to the truth (1 Pet. 
1:22). 1 Pet. 1:2 and 14 also refer to this obedience: Christians are “‘children of 
obedience’’, because this obedience must embrace their whole lives. 

2. The use of the noun corresponds to that of the vb. Apart from Phil. 2:8, where 
it refers to Christ, the adj. hypékoos also occurs in 2 Cor. 2:9 and Acts 7:39. Paul 
found in the Philippians (Phil. 2:12) the obedient attitude which he had expected 
from the Corinthians (2 Cor. 2:9). He had to warn the Thessalonians to have 
nothing to do with those who would not obey the apostolic instructions (2 Thess. 
3:14). Besides those who obey the message of faith (Acts 6:7) there are those who 
refuse to obey the gospel (Rom. 10:16; 2 Thess. 1:8). Beneath all this lies the 
understanding of faith as an act of obedience. Moreover, obedience to Christ 
cannot be separated from obedience to his messengers and to the message they 
proclaim. Such obedience must work itself out in the life of the Christian. Chris- 
tians are hindered by obeying the sinful passions of the body (Rom. 6:12). From 



obedience to the Lord it follows that one must submit willingly to earthly authori- 
ties, parents and masters; and these too must of course acknowledge the Lord 
Christ as the highest authority (Eph. 6:1-9; Col. 3:18—-20). As an example and a 
warning from the OT, Acts 7:39 mentions the Israelites who refused obedience to 
Moses (Num. 14:3 f.). In contrast, Heb. 11:8 names Abraham as an example of 
believing obedience (cf. Gen. 12:1-—8). W. Mundle 
—> Command, — Disciple, — Faith, ~ Law, — See, — Word 

(a). D. Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, 1959°; R. Bultmann, Jesus and the Word, 1934, 53-75; 
Theology of the New Testament, I, 1952, 314 ff.; D. Daube, Civil Disobedience in Antiquity, 1972; 
C. H. Dodd, Gospel and Law, 1951; J. Horst, ous, TDNT V 543-59; G. Kittel, akouo, TDNT I 216—- 
25; R. N. Longenecker, ‘“‘The Obedience of Christ in the Theology of the Early Church’’, in R. 
Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope (Leon Morris Festschrift), 1974, 142-52; W. Michaelis, horad 
TDNTV 315-82; P. S. Minear, The Obedience of Faith, SBT Second Series 19, 1971; H. R. 
Moehring, “The Verb akouein in Acts 9, 7 and 12, 9”, NovT3, 1959, 80 ff.; C. F. D. Moule, 
“Obligation in the Ethic of Paul’’, in W. R. Farmer, C. F. D. Moule and R. R. Niebuhr, eds., 
Christian History and Interpretation: Studies Presented to John Knox, 1967, 389-406; O. Procksch, 
legd, TDNT IV 91 ff.; R. Schnakenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament, 1965; A. 
Stéger, ““Obedience’’, EBT II 616-20. 

(b). H. von Campenhausen, ‘“‘Recht und Gehorsam in der Altesten Kirche’’, TABI 20, 1941, 279 ff. ; 
R. Deichgraber, ‘“Gehorsam und Gehorchen in der Verkiindigung Jesu’, ZNW 52, 1961, 119 ff.; 
E. von Dobschiitz, ‘Die fiinf Sinne im Neuen Testament’’, JBL 48, 1929, 378 ff.; J. Gnilka, “Zur 
Theologie des Horens nach den Aussagen des Neuen Testaments’’, Bibel und Leben 2, 1961, 71 ff.; 
S. Gross, ‘‘Der Gehorsam Christi’, Geist und Leben 29, 1956, 2-11; R. Gyllenberg, ‘‘Glaube und 
Gehorsam”’, ZSTh 4, 1937, 547 ff.; E. Kamlah, “‘hypotassesthai in den neutestamentlichen ‘Haus- 
tafeln’’’, in O. BGcher and K. Haacker, eds., Verborum Veritas. Festschrift fiir Gustav Stahlin, 
1970, 237-44; J. Kaufmann, Der Begriff des Hoérens im Johannesevangelium, Dissertation, 
Gregorian University, Rome, 1969-70; O. Kuss, ‘“‘Der Begriff des Glaubens im Neuen Testament’’, 
ThG 27, 1935, 695 ff.; K. Lammerts, Hoéren, Sehen und Glauben im Neuen Testament, 1966; W. 
Mundle, Der Glaubensbegriff des Paulus, 1932, 29 ff.; K. H. Schelkle, Die Passion Jesu in der 
Verkiindigung des Neuen Testaments, 1949; A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, 1927*, 
611 f.; Gottes Gerechtigkeit, 1935, 316f. 


[kapdia Kapota (kardia), heart; kapdloyywotne (kardiognosteés), 
P knower of hearts; oxAnpoxapoia (sklérokardia), hard- 

ness of heart. 

CL kardia was used in secular Gk. in literal and metaphorical senses. On the one 
hand, it denoted the heart as an organ of the body and the centre of physical 
life (particularly in Aristotle). On the other hand, it was regarded as the seat of the 
emotions and the source of spiritual life in general. Used in specific senses with 
reference to nature, it meant the pith of wood and the seed of plants. kardia also 
had the general sense of centre, the innermost part (of men, animals or plants). 

Especially in Homer and the tragedians, kardia received a considerably extended 
range of meaning. It not longer indicated merely the centre of the body but also the 
intellectual and spiritual centre of man as a whole. 

(a) kardia, the seat of the emotions and feelings, of the instincts and passions. 
In this context the Greek thought of emotions like joy and sadness, courage and 
cowardice, strength and fear, love, hatred and anger (Homer, //. 21, 547). 

(b) Homer, in particular, brought together the heart and reason without clearly 
separating thought and feeling. (//. 21, 441). From this point it is only a short step 



to seeing the heart as the centre of man’s will and as the seat of his power of deci- 
sion (//. 10, 244). 

OT The OT uses /éb and /ébab for heart. /éb occurs in the older strata and /ébab 

does not appear until Isa. The OT also uses heart in the two meanings, lit. and 
metaphorical. The LXX renders /éb predominantly by kardia, more rarely by 
dianoia (mind) and psyché (soul). The nuances of the concept are as clearly recog- 
nizable here asin the OT. kardia occurs predominantly in a general sense, referring 
to the whole man. 

1. Viewed asa bodily organ, the heart is the seat of strength and of physical life 
(Ps. 38:10[11]; Isa. 1:5). When the heart is strengthened by food the whole man is 
revived (Gen. 18:5; Jdg. 19:5; 1 Ki. 21:7). 

2. In the metaphorical sense /éb is the seat of man’s spiritual and intellectual 
life, the inner nature of man. Here the close connection between spiritual and 
intellectual processes and the functional reactions of the heart’s activity is particu- 
larly clearly seen. This explains the close contact between the concepts /éb and 
nepes (— Soul) which can even be used interchangeably (cf. Jos. 22:5; 1 Sam. 2:35; 
Deut. 6:5). In the OT /éb is also the seat of man’s feeling, thinking and willing: 

(a) The heart is the seat of the emotions, whether of joy (Deut. 28:47) or pain 
(Jer. 4:19), of tranquillity (Prov. 14:30) or excitement (Deut. 19:6), etc. 

(b) The heart is the seat of the understanding and of knowledge, of rational 
forces and powers (1 Ki. 3:12; 4:29[MT 5:9]), as well as fantasies and visions (Jer. 
14:14). But folly (Prov. 10:20 f.) and evil thoughts also operate in the heart. 

(c) The will originates in the heart, also the carefully weighed intention (1 Ki. 
8:17) and the decision which is ready to be put into effect (Exod. 36:2). 

léb, however, means less an isolated function than the man with all his urges, 
in short, the person in its totality (Ps. 22:26[27]; 73:26; 84:2[3]). It is “‘a compre- 
hensive term for the personality as a whole, its inner life, its character. It is the 
conscious and deliberate spiritual activity of the self-contained human ego” (W. 
Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 1967, 143). Here OT usage contrasts 
with that of secular Gk., for there the heart, with all its differentiations of meaning, 
has only one function within the system of spiritual and intellectual processes. 

3. Since the idea of responsibility is particularly related to the heart, “‘that which 
comes out of the heart is quite distinctively the property of the whole inner man, 
and therefore makes him, as a consciously acting ego, responsible for it’? (W. 
Eichrodt, op. cit., 144). Since, in the OT, the only corrective to this responsibility 
of man is to be found in Yahweh, the heart is also the organ through which man, 
either as godly or as disobedient, meets God’s word and acts. It is the seat of awe 
and worship (1 Sam. 12:24; Jer. 32:40); the heart of the godly inclines in faithful- 
ness to the law of God (Isa. 51:7), that of the ungodly is hardened and far from 
God (Isa. 29:13). It is in the heart that conversion to God takes place (Ps. 51:10, 
17[12, 19]; Joel 2:12). 

4. The kidneys (Heb. k*/ay6t; Gk. nephros, only in plur.; in the NT only Rev. 
2:23, citing Jer. 11:20) are frequently mentioned in close connection with the 
heart. They are—in the metaphorical sense —the seat of the deepest spiritual 
emotions and motives (Ps. 7:9[10]; 26:2; Jer. 17:10; 20:12; cf. 1 Sam. 24:5[6]; 



25:31; léb, — conscience), so secret that men cannot fathom them. Only God is 
able to search and test them. 

5. (a) Philo and Josephus use “heart” exclusively as a bodily organ, the central 
part of physical life, without clearly defining the seat of the inner life. Philo leaves 
open the question of whether the hégemonikon, the controlling reason, is to be 
found in the heart or in the brain, though he shows many echoes of OT usage. 
The metaphorical sense, which predominates in the OT, drops very much into the 
background, especially in Josephus. 

(b) On the other hand, Rab. Judaism — like the OT-—can speak of the heart as 
the centre of life, even of life before God, of the good and evil thoughts that dwell 
in the heart, but also of the worship of God which the heart offers (prayer; cf. e.g. 
Sifre Deut. 41). (On Philo, Josephus and Rab. Jud. see J. Behm, kardia, TDNT, 
III 609 ff.) 

NT The NT use of kardia coincides with the OT understanding of the term, just 

as much as it differs from the Gk. The meaning of heart as the inner life, the 
centre of the personality and as the place in which God reveals himself to men is 
even more clearly expressed in the NT than in the OT. In passages where OT would 
have used heart in the sense of person, NT often uses the personal pronoun (e.g. 
Matt. 9:3; 16:7; 21:25, 38; 2 Cor. 2:1). Nevertheless kardia occurs in 148 pass- 
ages in the NT: in Paul 52 times; the Synoptics 47; Acts 17; Catholic Epistles 13; 
Heb. 10; Jn. 6 and Rev. 3 times. 

1. (a) kardia as the centre of physical life and man’s psychological make up. 
kardia occurs relatively seldom in the sense of the bodily organ, the seat of natural 
life (Lk. 21:34; Acts 14:17; Jas. 5:5). By contrast, it more frequently denotes the 
seat of intellectual and spiritual life, the inner life in opposition to external appear- 
ance (2 Cor. 5:12; 1 Thess. 2:17; cf. 1 Sam. 16:7). The powers of the — spirit, 
—> reason, and —> will have their seat in the heart in the same way as the movements 
of the — soul, the feelings, the passions and the instincts. The heart stands for man’s 
ego. It is simply the person (“‘the hidden person of the heart’’, 1 Pet. 3:4). 

(b) kardia as the centre of spiritual life. The most significant instances of kardia 
in the NT occur in those passages which speak of man’s standing before God. The 
heart is that in man which is addressed by God. It is the seat of doubt and hardness 
as well as of faith and obedience. 

A striking feature of the NT is the essential closeness of kardia to the concept 
nous, mind. nous can also have the meaning of person, a man’s ego. Heart and 
mind (noémata, lit. thoughts) can be used in parallel (2 Cor. 3:14 f.) or synony- 
mously (Phil. 4:7). In such cases the element of knowledge is more heavily em- 
phasized with nous than with kardia, where the stress lies more on the emotions 
and the will (R. Bultmann, Theology of the NT, I, 1952, 222). Thus it is the person, 
the thinking, feeling, willing ego of man, with particular regard to his responsibility 
to God, that the NT denotes by the use of kardia. 

2. Sin marks, dominates and spoils not only the physical aspects of natural man, 
not only his thinking and willing, feeling and striving as individual elements, but 
also their source, man’s innermost being, his heart. But if the heart has been en- 
slaved by sin, the whole man is in bondage. Evil thoughts come from the heart 
(Mk. 7:21 par. Matt. 15:19). Shameful desires dwell in the heart (Rom. 1:24). 


The heart is disobedient and impenitent (Rom. 2:5; 2 Cor. 3:14 f.), hard and faith- 
less (Heb. 3:12), dull and darkened (Rom. 1:21; Eph. 4:18). Referring to his 
opponents, Jesus quoted the prophet Isaiah, “‘Your heart is far from me” (MK. 7:6; 
par. Matt. 15:8). Equally he rebuked his disciples for their lack of faith and their 
hardness of heart (Mk. 16:14; cf. Lk. 24:25, 32). Neither can the Gentiles excuse 
themselves before God, for they carry in their hearts the knowledge of what is good 
and right in God’s sight (Rom. 2:15; — Covenant, art. diathéké; — God, art. theos 
NT 4(b)). 

“The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; who can 
understand it?” Jeremiah’s complaint (17:9) voices the view of the NT also. No 
man can understand his heart, let alone change it. Man without God lives under 
the power of sin, which has taken up its abode in his heart and from this vantage 
point enslaves the whole man. 

3. God alone can reveal the things hidden in the heart of man (1 Cor. 4:5), 
examine them (Rom. 8:27) and test them (1 Thess. 2:4). Because corruption stems 
from the heart it is there that God begins his work of renewal. kardia is “‘the place 
where God deals with man... that part of aman... where, in the first instance, the 
question for or against God is decided’’ (Gutbrod). Just as the heart is the seat of 
faithlessness, it is also the seat of faith (Rom. 10:6-10). In Rom. 2:5 the human 
heart is described as ametanoétos, impenitent. Hence “‘it is apparent that penitence 
(metanoia, change of mind) is a matter of the “‘heart”’ (kardia) (Bultmann, op. cit., 
I, 221). Conversion takes place in the heart and is thus a matter of the whole man. 
God’s word does not simply capture the understanding or the emotions, but it 
pierces the heart (Acts 2:37; 5:33; 7:54). 

This conversion of the heart to —> faith is not achieved through the will or desire 
of the human heart (1 Cor. 2:9), but solely because God opens a man’s heart 
(Acts 16:14) and lets his light illumine the heart (2 Cor. 4:6). God bears his witness 
to man by sending into his heart the Spirit of his Son (2 Cor. 1:22). When this 
Spirit takes up his dwelling in the heart, man is no longer a slave to sin, but a son 
and heir of God (Gal 4:6 f.). God pours his love into his heart (Rom. 5:5). Through 
faith Christ can take up residence in the heart (Eph. 3:17). 

4. The heart of man, however, is the place not only where God arouses and 
creates faith. Here faith proves its reality in obedience and patience (Rom. 6:17; 
2 Thess. 3:5). Here the word of God is kept (Lk. 8:15). Here the peace of Christ 
begins its rule (Col. 3:15). God’s grace strengthens and establishes the heart (Heb. 
13:9). The NT describes a heart directed unreservedly to God as a “‘pure heart’’ 
(Matt. 5:8; | Tim. 1:5). This purity of heart is based solely on the fact that the 
blood of Christ cleanses it (Heb. 10:22; cf. 1 Jn. 1:7), and Christ dwells in it by 
faith (Eph. 3:17). 

5. Two further related words which occur in the NT must be mentioned here. 

(a) kardiognostés is unknown to secular Gk. and to the LXX, and occurs in the 
NT only in Acts 1:24 and 15:8 and later in patristic writings. It describes God as 
the knower of hearts. The fact that God sees, tests and searches the hidden depths 
of the human heart is commonly stated in both the OT and the NT (1 Sam. 16:7; 
Jer. 11:20; 17:9 f.; Lk. 16:15; Rom. 8:27; 1 Thess. 2:4, Rev. 2:23, cf. above OT, 
3). This belief in the omniscience of God is expressed succinctly by the adj. kardio- 



(b) sklérokardia, unknown in secular Gk., occurs in the LXX in Deut. 10:16; 
Sir. 16:10; Jer. 4:4 (Heb. equivalent ‘or/at /ébab). Otherwise it is found only in the 
NT (Mk. 10:5 par. Matt. 10:8; Mk. 16:14; similarly Rom. 2:5) and in patristic 
writers. Hardness of heart is the closedness of the self-centred man to God, his 
offer and demands, and also to his fellowmen. The natural man has a stony heart, 
turned against God and his neighbour, until God’s intervention gives him a new, 
obedient heart (cf. Ezek. 36:26 f.). T. Sorg 
—> Body, — Hard, — Head, — Man 

(a). J. B. Bauer, “Heart”, EBT I 360-63; C. A. Briggs, ‘““A Study of the Use of /éb and /ébab in the 
Old Testament’’, in Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut, 1897, 94-105; R. Bultmann, Theology 
of the New Testament, 1, 1952, 220-27; F. Baumgartel and J. Behm, kardia etc., TDNT III 605-14; 
R. C. Dentan, “Heart”, /DB II 549 f.; R. Jewett, Paul’s Anthropological Terms, 1971; A. R. 
Johnson, The Vitality of the Individual in the Thought of Ancient Israel, 1949; L. J. Kuyper, ‘““The 
Hardness of Heart according to Biblical Perspective’, S/T 27, 1974, 459-74; J. Pedersen, /srael, 
_I-II, 1926, 99 ff.; K. Rahner, Theological Investigations, 1, 1967, 321-52; D. M. Stanley, ‘‘ ‘From 
his heart will flow rivers of living water’ (Jn. 7:38)”, Cor Jesu, I, 1959, 507-42; H. W. Wolff, 
Anthropology of the Old Testament, 1974, 40-58. 

(b). J. M. Bover, ‘“‘Das heilige Herz Jesu im Neuen Testament’’, Zeitschrift fiir Askese und Mystik 
13, 1938, 285-301; G. E. Closen, ‘‘Das Herz des Erlosers in den heiligen Schriften des Alten 
Bundes”’, Zeitschrift fiir Askese und Mystik 18, 1943, 17-30; J. Doresse, “Le Coeur”, Etudes Carméli- 
taines 29, 1950, 82-97; B. de Gerardon, ‘“‘Le coeur, la bouche, les mains. Essai sur un schéme 
biblique’’, Bible et Vie Chrétienne 1, 4, 1953, 7-24; A. Guillaumont, ‘‘Les sens du noms du coeur 
dans l’antiquité’’, Le Coeur: Etudes Carmélitaines 29, 1950, 41-81; P. Jotion, ‘““Locutions hébraiques 
avec la préposition ‘al devant /éb, leébab’’, Biblica 5, 1924, 49-53; M. Koehler, Le Coeur et les 
Mains, 1962; F. H. von Meyenfeldt, Het Hart (léb, lébadb) in Het Oude Testament, 1950; F. 
Notscher, Gotteswege und Menschenwege in der Bibel und in Qumran, Bonner Biblische Beitrage 15, 
1958; G. Pidoux, L’ Homme dans I’ Ancien Testament, 1953; H. Rahner, Cor Salvatoris, 1954, 19-45; 
H. Rusche, ‘“‘Das menschliche Herz nach biblischem Versténdnis’’, Bibel und Leben 3, 1962, 
201 ff.; N. Schmidt, ‘““Anthropologische Begriffe im Alten Testament”, EvTh 24, 1964, 374-88; 
F. Stolz, /éb, THAT I 861-67. 

Heaven, Ascend, Above 

Man has always contrasted heaven with his earthly environment (— Earth). To 
the physical relationship there has also corresponded a metaphysical one. As well 
as being a spatial term, heaven became a general expression for everything that 
has power over man, the domain of gods and spirits. The Gk. word ouranos in- 
cludes both aspects, the firmament and the abode of God (cf. the difference be- 
tween sky and heaven in Eng.). Sometimes it is replaced by the purely formal and, 
above (in opposition to kat6é, below; — Hell). The vb. anabaino is used in a purely 
technical sense, especially of the ascent to the temple mountain, to the sanctuary, 
and also of Jesus’ exaltation and ascension (— Height). 

[. mene. | avaBpaiva (anabaind), go up, mount up; Katapaivw 
| avafaivo | (katabaino), descend; petaPaivw (metabaind), pass over. 
CL anabaino is found from Homer on. The root-word, baind, which is absent from 

the NT, means to go, walk (the NT substitutes erchomai; —-~ Come). The com- 
pound anabaind indicates movement towards a destination: to go up, mount up, 

ascend, grow up. The spatial meaning predominates; one climbs a mountain, 


mounts a platform, goes upstairs. If the destination is a holy piace, the going up 
involves performance of some cultic act. A man goes up to the temple (situated on 
a higher level) to pray; the mystic is promised ascent to the world of the gods, 
heaven or Olympus (Mithraic Liturgy 10, 22). 

oT In the LXX anabainéd most frequently renders ‘a/ah (go up, ascend, climb) and 

is used particularly of going up to the mountain of God, the sanctuary and 
Jerusalem (Exod. 34:4; 1 Sam. 1:3; 2 Ki. 19:14). In Gen. 28:12 Jacob’s dream 
pictured a “‘ladder’’, or more precisely a ramp or stair-like pavement, which, in 
accordance with the ancient concept of the world, led up to the gate of heaven. 
This was the place where intercourse between the earth and the upper divine world 
took place. God’s messengers were going up and down, “fulfilling divine commands 
or supervising the earth’ (G. von Rad, Genesis, 1961, 279; —> Babylon). In Jon. 
2:7 descent into the underworld signifies condemnation and death, and ascent 
signifies pardon and life. 

NT 1. The NT retains the basic spatial sense: to climb a mountain, or go up to 

Jerusalem for the Passover (Lk. 2:4; 18:10; Jn. 7:8 ff.; Acts 3:1; Gal. 2:1). 
anabaino occasionally denotes the growth of plants (Matt. 13:7; so also occasion- 
ally in the LXX, cf. Gen. 41:5), and metaphorically the rise of ideas (Lk. 24:38; 
1 Cor. 2:9) and the ascent of prayers to God (Acts 10:4). 

2. The specific cultic connotation fades in the Synoptics behind a more general 
spiritual meaning. When Jesus came up out of the water of the Jordan or climbed 
a mountain, his ascent was the prelude to some action on the part of God. Thus 
Jesus received the — Spirit after his baptism, cf. also instances of prayer, teaching, 
healing and calling (Matt. 3:16 par. Mk. 1:10; Matt. 5:1; 14:23; 15:29; Mk. 3:13; 
Lk. 9:28). 

3. Jn. uses anabaino as a fixed expression for the ascent of the Son of man 
(similarly Acts 2:34; Rom. 10:6f.; Eph. 4:8). In this sense the vb. is comple- 
mented by katabaind, descend. Both concepts describe a movement which origi- 
nates from heaven and is directed towards the earth, and vice versa. The stress 1s 
not on some kind of journey to heaven; the decisive element is Jesus’ going from 
and to God. This is naturally expressed in the spatial categories of the ancient 
world concept. Christ, as the pre-existent Logos (—> Word), bridges the gulf between 
heaven and earth and becomes man (Jn. 3:13; cf. Prov. 30:4; Jn. 6:33, 38, 41 f.). 
With his elevation on the cross he ascends “‘where he was before” (Jn. 6:62). His 
descent reveals the Father’s love; his ascent God’s sovereign power. In his descent 
Jesus is the revealer; in his ascent the perfecter through whom his people receive 
the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of the Son (Jn. 20:17). In his descent 
and ascent he bridges the gulf between God and the world, between light and dark- 
ness. Some scholars see in this a background of gnostic ideas, but if so they are 
ignored in the presentation of Jesus as the Word become flesh (Jn. 1:14; — Height, 
art. hypsoo). (On this cf. L. Morris, The Gospel according to John, 1971, 222 ff. with 
R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, ad loc., and Theology of the New Testament, 
I, 1952, 37, 166 ff.) 

The — Son stands in a permanent relationship to the — Father, which 1s 
described with the help of the vision of the ascending and descending angels (Jn. 



1:51; cf. Gen. 28:12). Thus in the earthly presence of the Son of man descent and 
ascent are repeated, in that his thoughts are derived from the Father and his acts 
are directed to the Father. 

4. (a) metabaino (pass over) is used in Jn. to describe the passage from death to 
life. As Jesus crossed the frontier in his elevation on the cross, so man does in the 
obedience of faith. The believer passes over into the risen Christ’s sphere of life 
(Jn. 5:24; 13:1; 1 Jn. 3:14). 

(b) katabaino also denotes the eschatological arrival of the Ayrios (~ Lord) and 
the heavenly — Jerusalem (1 Thess. 4:16; Rev. 3:12; 21:2, 10). But already God’s 
good and life-giving gifts are coming down to us, above all his trustworthy 
word that we should be a kind of first fruits of his creatures (Jas. 1:17 f.). Similarly 
Jesus is the living bread which has already come to us from God himself and been 
made a present reality (Jn. 6:50, 58). B. Siede 

5. The ascent and descent of Christ is referred to in Eph. 4:8 ff. in connection 
with a discussion of unity and gifts in the church. V. 8 alludes to Ps. 68:18 [LXX 
67:19; MT 68:19]: ‘“Therefore it is said, ‘When he ascended on high he led a host 
of captives, and he gave gifts to men’ ”’ (RSV). There are, however, certain obvious 
differences from the Ps. The latter is in the 2nd per. sing. and refers to receiving and 
not giving gifts: ‘““Thou didst ascend the high mount leading captives in thy train, 
and receiving gifts among men, even among the rebellious, that the LorD God may 
dwell there’ (RSV). The verse “alludes to the homage before God when, returning 
from a war, he has occupied his throne to receive the voluntary or enforced gifts 
of homage rendered to him” (A. Weiser, The Psalms, 1962, 488). E. K. Simpson 
relates it specifically to David’s capture of the Jebusite fortress (2 Sam. 5:6 f.) 
which became his capital, —- Jerusalem, and the ascent of the ark there (cf. 2 Sam. 
6:15 f.; also Ps. 24). The idea of giving rather than receiving gifts is supported by 
the Syriac version of the OT (the Peshitta) and the Targum or Aramaic paraphrase 
of the Pss., where the passage is interpreted of Moses’ ascent of Sinai to receive the 
law. (This may have been influenced by the reference to Sinai in the preceding 
verse. In later Judaism Pentecost was regarded as the anniversary of the giving of 
the law.) Eph. 4:8 is probably best regarded not as a direct quotation from the OT 
as a prophecy of the bestowal of gifts, but as an interpretative gloss on the Ps. 
explaining what God is doing now in contrast with the situation described in the 
Ps. The introductory words “Therefore it is said’? render the Gk. dio legei, lit. 
“therefore ... says’’, with the subject understood. The same expression occurs 
again in Eph. 5:14 introducing a quotation which is not to be found in scripture 
(cf. also Rom. 15:10; 2 Cor. 6:2; Gal. 3:16). It 1s possible that ‘“‘scripture’”’ should 
be supplied as subject as in Rom. 10:11. But as neither Eph. 4:8 nor Eph. 5:14 are 
verbatim quotations it seems more likely that “‘God’’ (or the Spirit) is to be under- 
stood as the subject and what follows is what God is now saying to the church. In 
other words, the Ps. has now to be read in the light of the descent and ascension of 
Christ which has brought atsout a reversal of the situation in which the victors 
received gifts from the vanquished. 

The argument goes on to state that the words “the ascended’’ imply that “‘he 
had also descended into the lower parts of the earth” (v. 9). The latter may be 
taken as either (1) Hades (—> Hell; cf. Acts 2:25-35; cf. Ps. 16:10); (ii) the tomb 



(— Bury); or (iii) the earth, the gen. being a gen. of definition. The ascent is ful- 
filled in the resurrection and ascension (cf. Phil. 2:8), the ultimate purpose of which 
is ‘that he might fill all things”’ (v. 10; cf. 1:23; Col. 2:9; —> Fullness). The gifts that 
are then enumerated as the result of the ascension might at first sight appear as an 
anticlimax. They are seen in terms of the gift to the church of apostles, prophets, 
evangelists, pastors and teachers (v. 11). But in the context of the argument God’s 
ultimate purpose for mankind is growth in personal maturity in Christ (vv. 12-16, 
cf. 1 ff.). These gifts are directly related to that growth, for they carry on the minis- 
try of Christ to the church (cf. v. 7). 

For further discussion of this passage see F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Ephe- 
sians, 1961, 81 ff.; E. K. Simpson and F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Ephesians 
and the Colossians, 1957, 91 f.; B. Lindars, New Testament Apologetic, 1961, 52 ff., 
who sees Eph. 4:8 as an instance of midrash pesher deliberately modifying the text; 

cf. also E. E. Ellis, Paul’s Use of the Old Testament, 1957, 144. C. Brown 
7 dvw (and), above, upwards, up; dvw@@ev (andthen), from 
| mised | above; Katw (kato), below, downwards, down. 

CL ano, lit. above, upwards, earlier in time. It can describe land or mountains in 

contrast to the sea, or the sky and heaven in comparison with the earth, or even 
the earth in contrast to the underworld (F. Biichsel, and, TDNT I 376; Liddell- 
Scott, 169). 

OT Judaism emphasized strongly the contrast between above and below, i.e. 

between heaven as God’s sphere and the earth as man’s. On the other hand, there 
is a parallelism between what exists above and what exists and happens onearth. Thus, 
as heaven cannot exist without the twelve constellations, earth cannot exist without 
the twelve tribes. Similarly God studies the Torah in heaven as men do on earth 
(SB II 116). In this case, that which is above is prior in time. 

Stimulated by Hel. ideas, Philo worked out an extensive speculation on above 
and below (cf. Rev. Div. Her. 70; Gig. 22; Som. 1, 139). But this did not prove 
significant either for Jud. or the NT. Philo saw the upper and lower worlds as 
divided into levels. The lowest level is the material, and on the highest God stands. 
The sky forms as it were a spiritual material, the transitional level between the 
upper and lower worlds. (For examples of gnostic cosmology see W. Foerster, 
Gnosis: A selection of Gnostic Texts, I, 1972; I, 1974.) 

NT In the NT there are no cosmological speculations which set God and the world 

in radical opposition, attributing the latter to some other deity. God is the 
Creator and Lord of the whole world. Nevertheless, there is a contrast in so far as a 
distinction is drawn between the holy God and the sinful world. 

Jesus lifted up his eyes, i.e. towards heaven, where God dwells according to the 
ancient world concept (Jn. 11:41; cf. Acts 2:19). In contrast to his enemies who 
are “from below [kato]’, from this sinful — world, he is ‘‘from above [and]’’ 1.e. 
from God, to whom he will return (Jn. 8:23; cf. 13; cf. L. Morris, The Gospel 
according to John, 1971, 446 f.). 



In Gal. 4:25 f. there is a reference to —> “Jerusalem above,”’ which is free and is 
the mother of Christians, in contrast to the present Jerusalem, which, with her 
children subject to the law, is in slavery. 

The ‘‘upward call’? which Paul presses towards is the call of God in Jesus Christ 
(Phil. 3:14). Correspondingly Paul encourages his readers to “‘seek the things that 
are above’. This is more narrowly defined by a reference to the fact that Jesus 
Christ is seated at the right hand of God (Col. 3:1 f.; —~ Hand, art. dexios). On 
anothen —> Birth, art. gennao. H. Bietenhard 

: ; ov pavdc (ouranos), heaven; ovpavioc (ouranios), heavenly ; 
OD Pavoc | : : ae ; 

| obpavdg émovpavioc (epouranios), heavenly; odpavd@ev (ourano- 
then), from heaven. 

CL ouranos, heaven, possibly related to an Indo-European root meaning water, 

rain, means that which moistens or fructifies. The related adj. ouranios means 

what is in heaven, comes from heaven, or appears in the heavens, i.e. heavenly. 

But it can also mean what is appropriate to a god, i.e. divine, and can even stand 

for god or the deity. On the other hand, it can mean simply that which belongs to 

the firmament or sky. epouranios means in heaven, belonging to the divine heaven. 

1. ouranos is found in Gk. from Homer on meaning the vault of heaven, the 
firmament. Viewed as that which embraces everything, ouranos is divine. In pre- 
Homeric religious myth Uranus (in its Latinized form) derived from the —> earth, 
‘Ge, which he impregnated in a holy marriage. According to the myth, Uranus 
was castrated and deposed as a god by Cronus the son of Uranus and Ge. But the 
image of the god Uranus remained alive until imperial times. In Orphic mythology 
heaven derived from the upper half of the cosmic egg. According to Homer, the 
(brazen, iron) heaven rests on pillars which Atlas carries. In heaven dwell the — 
gods, the immortal ouranioi or epouranioi, above all Zeus. One also finds in Gk. 
writing the idea of a heavenly garment. 

In the Gk. enlightenment the old mythological concepts dissolved; ouranos 
became simply the firmament, and ouranios was applied to phenomena appearing 
in this firmament. In Plato heaven can be equated with the — all, the cosmos 
(—> Earth). The starry heavens viewed as the dwelling place of the gods became the 
starting point for the investigation of existence and absolute knowledge. Hence 
Plato used ouranios to denote what really is and what is truly coming to be. The 
Stoics understood heaven as the outermost layer of the ether, and then also as the 
directing world principle. In Gk. the expression “earth and heaven” can denote the 
whole world. (See further H. Traub, TDNT V 498 ff.) 

2. In gnostic systems the ouranioi, the heavenly ones, have a body and are 
transitional beings of a supernatural nature. (See further 7DNT V 501; W. Foerster, 
op. cit., see indexes.) 

oT 1. The OT concepts of heaven. (a) In the OT concepts of heaven there are many 

links with ancient oriental ideas. The underworld (— Hell, art. hadés), — 
earth (art. gé) and heaven together form the cosmic building. The scant references 
suggest the picture of the flat disc of the earth, surrounded by the ocean, above 
which heaven or the firmament forms a vault like an upturned bowl or a hallow 



sphere. Above this there is the heavenly ocean (Gen. 1:8; Ps. 148:4-6). According 
to the ancient oriental view, there are many other heavenly spheres beyond the 
firmament which is visible from the earth. Such concepts are echoed in the expres- 
sion “the heaven of heavens” (Deut. 10:14; 1 Ki. 8:27; Ps. 148:4). The OT, 
however, lacks a single, definitive and comprehensive cosmogony (—> Creation; and 
cf. A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 1963°). 

The OT understanding of the world is throughout sober and rational, even if 
there are occasional echoes in poetical language of ancient mythological ideas. 
Thus heaven is said to have windows (Gen. 7:11; 2 Ki. 7:2) through which the 
waters restrained by the firmament can pour. Heaven rests on pillars (Job 26:11) 
or on foundations (2 Sam. 22:8). It is like a pitched — tent (Isa. 40:22; 44:24; 
Ps. 104:2). It is an unrolled scroll (Isa. 34:4; — Book, art. biblos) and can be torn 
(Isa. 64:1 [MT 63:19]). Together with the earth and the water under it, the heavens 
make up the universe (cf. Exod. 20:4; Ps. 115:15-17). But there is no word for 
universe in Heb. It is compared to a — house in which the heavens are like a loft 
(Ps. 104:3; Amos 9:6). In addition to the firmament, the air above the earth can 
also be called the heavens (e.g. Gen. 1:26; 6:7; — Demon, Air, art. aér). 

(b) Above the firmament there are the storehouses of snow, hail (Job 38:22), 
wind (Jer. 49:36; Job 37:9; Ps. 135:7), and likewise the waters (Ps. 33:7; Job 
38:37) which return to heaven when it has rained (Job 36:27; Isa. 55:10). 

(c) In the sense of horizontal expanse it is possible to speak of the four ends of 
heaven (Jer. 49:36; Zech. 2:6[10]; 6:5; Dan. 7:2). Man cannot ascend to heaven 
(Deut. 30:12; Prov. 30:4). The attempt to build a tower whose top will reach to 
heaven is arrogant folly which is punished (Gen. 11:4 ff.; — Babylon). 

(d) Heaven is the embodiment of permanence (Deut. 11:21; Ps. 89:29[30)]). 
On the other hand, prophetic preaching also refers to judgment on the heavens 
(Jer. 4:23-26; Isa. 13:13; 34:4; 50:3; 51:6); God’s judgment is a cosmic catas- 
trophe. Isaiah speaks of the creation of a new heaven (Isa. 65:17; 66:22). 

(e) The “‘host of heaven’”’ means the stars (Gen. 2:1; Deut. 4:19; Jdg. 5:20), or 
supernatural spiritual beings (1 Ki. 22:19; Job 1:6 ff.; > Spirit). This host is 
under a commander (Jos. 5:14); it has. fiery horses (2 Ki. 2:11; 6:17). Under 
Assyrian influence the host of heaven became the object of worship, a practice 
against which the prophets protested (e.g. 2 Ki. 17:16; 21:3). In Deut. 4:19 the 
host of heaven is assigned to the peoples of the world for worship (cf. NEB). 

(f) Inthe OT, however, heaven is never accorded any ruling function. This isshown, 
for example, in the fact that the stars in the firmament are merely lights which serve 
to divide up the calendar (Gen. 1:14). They are not, therefore, considered to be 
gods, or the manifestations or vehicles of gods. The ancient oriental viewpoint has, 
in this respect, been radically demythologized. Astrological ideas which elsewhere 
were richly developed in the East appear only on the periphery (Deut. 18:9 ff.; 
Isa. 47:13; Jer. 10:2). | 

(g) Ancient oriental concepts also lie behind the correspondence between the 
heavenly and the earthly, especially in the case of things which have a sacral value. 
Thus, in the priestly view, the Tabernacle was built following a heavenly model 
(Exod. 25:9, 40). Ezekiel speaks of a scroll which already pre-existed in heaven 
(Ezek. 2:9 ff.; cf. Isa. 34:5 on God’s sword). The future, i.e. the whole eschatolo- 
gical order of salvation, is prefigured and already exists or has happened in heaven, 



so that it precedes the earthly event (Zech. 2 f.). The — “Son of man,” as the per- 
sonification of the eschatological people of God, is already present in heaven 
(Dan. 7:13 ff.). 

2. Yahweh and heaven. (a) More important for faith than these cosmological 
concepts 1s the statement that Yahweh created the heavens and the earth, 1.e. the 
whole universe (Gen. 1:1; cf. Isa. 42:5; Ps. 33:6). Like the whole creation, the 
firmament and the heavens praise Yahweh (Ps. 19:1[2]). The heavenly beings 
praise Yahweh because of his acts, for everything that happens on earth reveals 
God’s glory (Ps. 29:9; — Glory, art. doxa). 

(b) Many interpret passages like Jdg.5:4f., Deut. 33:2 and Hab. 3:3, to 
mean that in an earlier period Yahweh was conceived as dwelling on Sinai from 
which he came and intervened in history, while later people believed that Yahweh 
dwelt on Zion (Amos 1:2; Isa. 8:18). But religious interest did not centre on 
Yahweh’s dwelling, but on the God who deals with Israel and the nations. So 
apparently contradictory statements can stand side by side. In 1 Ki. 8:12-13 
Yahweh is said to dwell in the darkness of the Holy of Holies, i.e. in the — Temple. 
1 Ki. 8:27, on the other hand, says that the whole of heaven could not contain him. 

(c) As Israel entered into deeper contact with Canaanite religion, it took from 
the cult of Baal an important expression which it assimilated to its own faith in 
Yahweh. Yahweh was now described as the God or king of heaven, and this title 
became in fact very popular (Ezr. 5:11 f.; 6:9f.; 7:12, 21, 23; Dan. 2:18 f., 28, 
37, 44; cf. Gen. 11:5; 24:3; Ps. 29:10). It could now be said that Yahweh, like 
the Canaanite gods, rides on the clouds (Deut. 33:26; Ps. 68:4[5]; cf. 18:10[11]; 
Isa. 19:1). As king of heaven, Yahweh had built his palace upon the heavenly ocean 
(Ps. 104:3). Like the Ugaritic father god, El, Yahweh was imagined as enthroned in 
heaven, surrounded by heavenly beings and taking — counsel with them (1 Ki. 
22:19 ff.; Isa. 6:3 ff.; Job 1:6 ff.; Ps. 82:1; Dan. 7:9 ff.). It is remarkable how 
forcefully and how freely such originally foreign views could be accepted in Israel 
and transferred to Yahweh. The gods of the Canaanite pantheon had become 
Yahweh’s servants. So Yahweh is the only God in heaven above and on earth 
below (Deut. 4:39; 10:14). 

(d) This view of Yahweh as enthroned in heaven eventually obliterated completely 
the old view of the God of Sinai: Yahweh came down from his dwelling above the 
firmament (Exod. 24:9 ff.) to Sinai (Exod. 19:18). Above all according to the 
theology of Deut., Yahweh dwells in heaven and speaks from there (Deut. 4:36; 
12:5, 11, 21; 26:15; etc.). Only his ““Name’’ (sém;— Name) dwells on earth, 
according to this view, and that only in the — Temple in — Jerusalem. Further 
reflection still is revealed in the statement that all heaven cannot contain Yahweh 
(1 Ki. 8:27; Ps. 113:5 f.). Neither the visible nor the invisible world could enclose 
Yahweh, for they were after all both created by him. But in any case he is superior 
to them and does not allow himself to be confined in any way in them. 

(e) Just as Yahweh is in heaven, his — Word which remains eternally has its 
place in heaven (Ps. 89:2[3]; 119:89). The godly man, praying in his need, com- 
plains that Yahweh is hidden (Lam. 3:4), and asks him to rend the heavens and 
come down (Isa. 64:1 [MT 63:19]). Yahweh who dwells in heaven is invoked in 
prayer (Deut. 26:15; 1 Ki. 8:30), while the suppliants raise their hands to heaven 
(Exod. 9:29, 33). The same thing happens at the taking of an oath (Deut. 32:40). 



(f) It is possible for Yahweh to take chosen people to himself in heaven (Gen. 
5:24; 2 Ki. 2:11; cf. Ps. 73:24). This is a particular favour and honour, for on the 
OT view heaven is not otherwise the place where the dead or the soul go (cf. > 
Hell, art. hadeés). 

3. The LXX and late Judaism. (a) With few exceptions, ouranos in the LXX (667 

times) always occurs as the rendering of Samayim. It is in the plur., 51 times, a 
usage introduced through the LXX but unknown in secular Gk. It may be ex- 
plained as translation Gk. (for the Heb. S@mayim is plur.) and as a plur. of com- 
pleteness (above all in the Pss.). In later writings the frequency of the plur. increases 
considerably, indicating that the ancient oriental conception of several heavens 
had begun to have an effect (2 Macc. 15:23; 3 Macc. 2:2; Wis. 9:10; Tob. 8:5, 
etc.). , 
In Judaism the tendency to avoid the use of God’s name became increasingly 
stronger (cf. Exod. 20:7). In its place substitutes were used, among them ‘“‘heaven’’ 
(1 Macc. 3:18 f.; 4:10 f.; 12:15; Pirke Aboth 1:3, 11). Later even heaven was 
replaced (e.g. by maqém, place). ouranios only occurs 9 times in the LXX, for the 
God of Israel (1 Esd. 6:15; — Lord, art. kyrios), his power (Dan. 4:23; > Might, 
art. exousia), the angels as a heavenly army (4 Macc. 4:11; cf. Lk. 2:13), and the 
children of God (2 Macc. 7:34). epouranios only occurs 7 times in the LXX. 

(b) Contact with the intellectual climate of the ancient East resulted in a variety 
of cosmological speculations in pseudepigraphic and Rab. writings. In them 
apocalyptists and Rabbis undertake journeys to heaven and give revelations about 
things on the other side, but no generally binding doctrines about these things were 
ever arrived at. Some apocalyptic writings know only of one heaven (Eth. Enoch, 
4 Esd., Syr.Bar.). Others speak of three heavens (Test. Lev. 2 f., according to the 
original text), of five heavens (Gr. Bar.). S]. Enoch, Test. Abr., and Rab. tradition 
speak of seven heavens. A further result of eastern influence is the doctrine that 
everything corresponds to an archetype and pattern in heaven, and that all earthly 
existence and events are prefigured in heaven (— ano). Astronomical instruction 
is given allegedly as revelations from the — angels (Eth. Enoch 72-82; Jub.). But 
also we are shown all meteorological phenomena (rain, sun, etc.) coming from 
heaven, where they are kept in store-houses. Angels are set over both as controllers 
and supervisors. 

(c) In certain writings —> Paradise is located in heaven, either in the third (SI. 
Enoch 8:1-8; Ass. Mos. 37), or especially in Rab. tradition in the seventh. Even — 
hell (art. gehenna) can be located in heaven. After death the righteous go to heavenly 

There are many traditions about the heavenly Jerusalem. Speculation was par- 
ticularly concerned with God’s throne in heaven (in connection with Ezek. 1 f.; 
Exod. 24:9-11; 1 Ki. 22:19 ff.; Isa. 6:1 ff.; Dan. 7:9 f.) and with the — angels in 
heaven, their names, classes and functions. It was believed that God was worshipped 
in a heavenly cultus, the archangel Michael sacrificed on a heavenly altar, and the 
heavenly beings sang songs of praise. 

Finally, —> Satan 1s also to be found in heaven. In connection with OT traditions 
he is viewed as the — accuser of men before God (cf. Job | f.), and also as an evil 
power opposed to God. Jewish traditions about the heavenly treasure-houses are 
important (— Possessions, art. thésauros). In them are kept, e.g., the good works 



of men, and also the heavenly — books and tablets on which are written the fate of 
earthly beings. Also recorded are the — rewards and punishments that await the 
last — judgment. 

(d) Philo combined Gk. and OT ideas. The ouranos noétos, the immaterial 
heaven of conceptual thinking present only in idea (Spec. Leg., 1, 302; Op. Mund. 
29; Decal. 102), must be distinguished from the ouranos aisthétos, the tangible 
heaven which must not be deified (Op. Mund., 117). The visible heaven depends 
on both spiritual and earthly things. Heaven actualizes the unity of the whole 
cosmos. Philo speaks of the heavenly man as ouranios, a copy of God (Op.Mund., 
82). In so far as every man is a part of him, every man is also an inhabitant of 
heaven. Correspondingly Philo can talk about heavenly and earthly virtues. (See 
further H. Traub, TDNT V 502 f.) 

NT In the NT ouranos occurs 272 times; most frequently in Matt. (82 times) 

especially in the phrase basileia ton ouranon, the — kingdom of heaven. ouranos 
occurs 34 times in the writings of Luke (of which 26 are in Acts); 18 times each in 
Mk. and Jn.; 21 times in Paul and 52 in Rev. Apart from Matt., it occurs mostly 
in the sing. ouranios occurs only 9 times, of which 7 are in Matt. in the phrases 
“your heavenly Father” (5:48; 6:14, 26, 32; 23:9) and ‘“‘my heavenly Father’ 
(15:13; 18:35). Behind this there lies an Aram. phrase which is translated in other 
passages (e.g. 18:19) by ‘‘my [your] Father in heaven.” epouranios is found 18 
times in the NT, of which 11 are in Paul, 6 in Heb. and one in Jn. In contrast to the 
very limited use of ouranios, epouranios is the adj. which was clearly preferred and 
which later prevailed. 

1. Conceptions of the world. (a) The NT also presupposes ancient eastern world 
views. Rev. makes the most statements about heavenly beings and objects, but the 
interest is not cosmological but theological and soteriological. There is clearly no 
attempt to give definitive instruction about the geography of heaven as in certain 
Rab. writings (cf. above oT 3). In this context it is striking that there is never any 
mention of several heavens but only of one. The only passage in the NT which, in 
agreement with Rab. teaching, speaks of three heavens is 2 Cor. 12:2-4, but we 
are not given any more precise information (cf. P. E. Hughes, Paul’s Second Epistle 
to the Corinthians, 1962, 432 ff.). As in the OT, the expression “‘heaven and earth”’ 
means the universe (Matt. 5:18, 34 f.; 11:25; 24:35; Lk. 12:56, etc.). Occasionally 
a reference to the sea is added, giving rise to a tripartite formula (Acts 4:24; 14:15; 
Rev. 14:7). Since, according to this world picture, heaven is “‘above’’ (— ano), 
people raise their hands or their eyes towards it (Mk. 6:41 par. Matt. 14:18, Lk. 
9:16; Mk. 7:34; Lk. 18:13; Jn. 17:1; Acts 1:11; 7:55; Rev. 10:5). The air can also 
be called heaven (Matt. 6:26; 16:2; 8:20; Mk. 4:32; Lk. 8:5; Acts 10:12; 11:6). 
In heaven, i.e. the firmament, are set the stars (+ Sun, Moon, Stars) which in 
eschatological discourse about the parousia fall to the earth (Mk. 13:25 par. Matt. 
24:29; Lk. 21:25; Rev. 6:13; 8:10; 9:1; 12:4-—> Present, art. parousia). Portents 
are seen in heaven (Rev. 12:1, 3; 15:1; — Miracle, art. sémeion). Jesus refused to 
perform a miracle from heaven (Mk. 8:11 f. par. Matt. 16:1). On the other hand, 
the beast (— Animal), as > Antichrist, performs such miracles (Rev. 13:13). 

(b) There are — angels in heaven as messengers and servants of God (Matt. 
18:10; Mk. 12:25; 13:32 par. Matt. 24:36; Eph. 3:15; Rev. 12:7; 19:1). They 



come from and return to heaven (Matt. 28:2; Lk. 2:15; 22:43; Gal. 1:8). They 
appear in the visions of John (Rev. 10:1; 18:1 etc.).—> Satan is thrown out of 
heaven so that he may no longer — accuse Jesus’ disciples (Lk. 10:18; Jn. 12:31; 
Rev. 12:12; cf. Isa.49:13 LXX). At this, heaven and the martyrs in heaven rejoice 
(Rev. 18:20; 11:12; 7:14). It is at this point that a development begins in cosmo- 
logical thinking which leads eventually to a fundamental difference between the late 
Jewish apocalyptic and the Christian views of heaven. Since Satan has been banished 
from heaven as the consequence of Jesus Christ’s saving work, everything dark 
and evil vanishes from heaven, with the result that it becomes a world of pure light 
(thus in the post-NT writings which deal with the heavenly realm, e.g. Asc. Isa.). 
Where evil powers in heaven are mentioned, the reference is primarily to the air or 
to the firmament (Eph. 2:2; 3:10; 6:12; Acts 7:42). Their sphere of influence, 
therefore, is entirely this side of God’s realm of light. 

(c) In agreement with the OT it is stated that God created heaven and earth 
(Acts 4:24; 14:15; 17:24; Rev. 10:6; 14:7), and that he will re-create them (2 Pet. 
3:13; Rev. 21:1). The present heaven is passing away like the earth (Mk. 13:31 
par. Matt. 24:35, Lk. 21:32; Heb. 12:26; 2 Pet. 3:7, 10, 12; Rev. 20:11), but 
Jesus’ words remain (Mk. 13:31 par. Matt. 24:35, Lk. 21:33). God is Lord of 
heaven and earth (Matt. 11:25; Acts 17:24; Matt. 5:34; Acts 7:49; cf. Isa. 66:1). 

(d) God is said to dwell “‘in heaven’’, but there is never any evidence of reflection 
on the difficulties inherent in this statement. Occasionally God is referred to by the 
OT expression “God of heaven” (Rev. 11:13; 16:11). Heaven itself is God’s throne 
(Matt. 5:34), and God’s throne is said to be in heaven (Acts 7:49; Heb. 8:1; Rev. 
4 f.). It follows from this (in correspondence with Rab. terminology, see above OT 
3 (c)) that heaven can be used as a substitute for — God (Matt. 5:10; 6:20; Mk. 
11:30; Lk. 10:20; 15:18, 21; Jn. 3:27), especially in Matt. in the expression “‘the 
kingdom of heaven” (3:2, 4:17; etc.; ~ Kingdom). 

It is more important theologically that God is called — ‘“‘Father in heaven” 
(Matt. 5:16, 45; 6:1, 9; 7:11, 21; 10:32 f.; 12:50): in Christ God turns towards 
man. Because God is in heaven his revelation takes place from heaven (Matt. 
11:27). At Jesus’ baptism and at other crises in his earthly ministry God’s voice 
was heard from heaven (Mk. 1:11 par. Matt. 3:17, Lk. 3:22; Jn. 12:28; cf. Heb. 
12:25). The seer heard voices from heaven (Rev. 10:4, 8; 11:12; 14:13; 18:4; 21:3), 
and the Holy — Spirit came down from heaven (Mk. 1:10 par. Matt. 3:16, Lk. 
3:21; Acts 2:2; 1 Pet. 1:12). But in the same way God’s wrath goes forth from 
heaven: in the form of the fire of judgment (Lk. 17:29; cf. 9:54; Rev. 20:9), and 
in general upon all the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men (Rom. 1:18). 

(e) According to Acts 14:17, God gives rain and fruitful seasons ouranothen, 
from heaven, implying both the physical and spiritual source. The only other 
occurrence of the word is in Acts 26:13, where it is used as an alternative to ek tou 
ouranou, from heaven (cf. Acts 9:3; 22:6). In period of drought heaven is considered 
to have been shut up at God’s command (Lk. 4:25; Jas. 5:17 f.; Rev. 11:6). 

(f) The NT also speaks of treasures of salvation in heaven. — Rewards (art. 
misthos) are in heaven (Matt. 5:12 par. Lk. 5:23). There is treasure in heaven 
(Matt. 6:20). The — names of the disciples are recorded in heaven (Lk. 10:20; 
cf. Heb. 12:23). Their — inheritance is there also (1 Pet. 1:4). Christians have a 
building (2 Cor. 5:1 f. oikodomé; cf. - House) and their citizenship or their home 



(Phil. 3:20) in heaven. There is mention of a heavenly — Jerusalem which is the 
Christians’ true home (Gal. 4:26; Heb. 12:22; Rev. 3:12; 21:2; 10), and even of a 
— temple in heaven (Rev. 11:19; but cf. 21:22). 

2. Christological statements. (a) The statements about heaven are particularly 
important when they stand in relation to — Jesus Christ. At his baptism the hea- 
vens opened, the Holy — Spirit descended upon him and God the Father acknow- 
ledged him (Matt. 3:16 f.; cf. above 1 (d)): the eschatological events began in Jesus 
and in him God was near. Heaven was open above him because he himself was now 
the door of heaven and of God’s house (Bethel) on earth (Jn. 1:51; cf. Gen. 28:12). 
Jesus taught his disciples to pray that God’s will would be done on earth as in 
heaven (Matt. 6:10; — Prayer, art. proseuchomai). When Jesus gave authority to 
Peter or to the disciples, their actions were valid in heaven, i.e. with God (Matt. 
16:19; 18:19; — Bind; — Open). 

Because their guardian angels behold God’s face, Jesus taught that little ones 
come under his special protection (Matt. 18:10; — Large, art. mikros). The Dead 
Sea Scrolls witness to belief in angels sharing in the community’s worship (1QSa 
2:9 f.) and in their rdéle as guardians of the meek and needy (1QH 5:20 ff.; cf. D. 
Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 275). The Jesus of Nazareth who stood before 
the Sanhedrin will sit at God’s right hand (— Hand, art. dexios) and come with the 
clouds of heaven (Mk. 14:62 par. Matt. 26:64, Lk. 22:69; cf. Ps. 110:1; Dan. 
7:13). At the parousia the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven (Matt. 
24:30; — Son, art. hyios tou anthropou). The Son of man will gather his — elect 
from one end of heaven to the other (Mk. 13:27 par. Matt. 24:31; cf. Deut. 4:32; 
Zech. 2:6[10]). All power in heaven and on earth has been given to the Risen One 
(Matt. 28:18). He is the — Lord (art. kyrios) who has been raised to God’s throne 
and to whom everything on earth and in heaven will pay homage (Phil. 2:10). He 
bestows the Holy Spirit from heaven and displays wonders and signs in heaven 
(Acts 2:17 f., 32-36). The Christian community is waiting for him to come to 
judge and to save (Phil. 3:20; 1 Thess. 1:10; 4:16; 2 Thess. 1:7). The disciple’s 
task is to wait for the coming of the Lord, not to look up into heaven (Acts 1:10 f.). 
Heaven must receive Christ until the parousia (Acts 3:21). As the — Lamb (art. 
amnos) who has been exalted to God’s throne, Christ has the power to open the 
sealed book and thus to set in motion the final phase of the world’s history (Rev. 
5:3, 5f.). Therefore the whole of creation praises him (Rev. 5:11 ff.). This means, 
moreover, that Christ does not belong to the realm of the world, but to the realm 
of God. As the One who has come from heaven and returned there, Jesus Christ 
reveals himself as the true — bread (art. artos) from heaven, by means of which 
God bestows eternal life (Jn. 6:31 f., 38, 41 f., 50 f.; cf. Exod. 16:4, 13-15). 

(b) As in the OT (Exod. 25:9), the earthly sanctuary in Heb. is a copy of the 
heavenly one. But as such it is only a shadow and the heavenly sanctuary is the 
only true and real one. This heavenly sanctuary is still, eschatologically speaking, 
to come (Heb. 8:5; 9:23 f.). Since Christ has entered the heavenly sanctuary, he 
has shown himself to be the true High — Priest (8:5). The Christian’s calling to 
—> faith is also epouranios (3:1; cf. Phil. 3:14). So too are the gifts, the eschatological 
salvation which Christians have tasted (6:4; 9:28). The homeland of the pilgrim 
people of God (11:16) and their Jerusalem, viewed as an eschatological — goal, 
are likewise epouranios, heavenly (12:22). 



According to Heb., Jesus’ exaltation (1:3; 8:1; — Height) signifies the fulfilment 
of his high priestly office. He has passed through the heavens and has been raised 
higher than they (4:14; 7:26; 9:11, 23 f.), since he has reached the very throne of 
God. There he has performed his real, true priestly service (8:1 f.), at the same time 
fulfilling and surpassing that of the OT. One cannot say in detail what cosmological 
perspectives underlie this statement. However, it seems clear that God is thought of 
here as not dwelling in heaven, i.e. not within his creation to which heaven of course 
belongs, but above or beyond the heavens. This idea is the outcome of reflection, 
although even here God’s transcendence over his creation is still expressed in 
spatial terms. 

(c) Certain special emphases are to be found in Eph. and Col. Christ is not only 
the agent of — creation (cf. | Cor. 8:6): primitive Christianity had no special 
belief in creation apart from belief in Christ. Christ was before anything created 
came to be, and he himself was not created (Col. 1:16). Christ is the instrument, 
the agent and the goal of creation; without him nothing can exist. Special emphasis 
is laid on the fact that everything, including the heavenly powers, was created “‘in 
Christ” and has been reconciled through him (Col. 1:15—23). The very heavenly 
powers were created solely for Christ (Col. 1:16; cf. 1 Cor. 15:24: Christ will 
destroy the heavenly powers). Christ is — head over all principalities and powers 
(cf. Col. 2:20). (On the background ideas see R. P. Martin, Colossians: The 
Church’s Lord and the Christian’s Liberty, 1972, 4-20.) 

It is the exalted Christ who has penetrated all the heavenly spheres and come 
down to earth. He has broken through the barrier erected by the evil powers which 
isolated men from God (Eph. 1:10; 4:9; cf. Pss. 67:18[LXX]; 68:18[MT]; Rom. 
9:5). Similarly Eph. 1:23 and 4:10 apply to Christ the OT statement that Yahweh 
fills heaven and earth. This is a consequence of the thought of Eph. 1:10 (cf. Col. 
1:16, 20) that every created thing has its goal in Christ and has no independent 
existence apart from him. — Creation is strictly related to the redeemer and to 
—> redemption. Creation and redemption, therefore, cannot be sundered in the 
gnostic fashion. Admittedly there are echoes of gnostic thought in the statement 
that heaven is filled with demonic powers which enslave men (Eph. 1 :10-23; Col. 
1:16f.). The passages quoted, however, show equally that everything is under- 
stood as referring strictly to Christ (Col. 1:20), and creation is envisaged from the 
standpoint of redemptive history (Col. 1:16 f.). 

Christ’s exaltation (Phil. 2:9 f.) is expressed in Eph. 1:10 by means of the image 
of the primal man with — body and — head. Everything is bound together under 
Christ as head, whether on earth or in heaven (i.e. all the members of the body, 
the complete — ‘‘all’’). There is no other realm but that of Christ. Eph. 3:15 puts it 
somewhat differently: heaven and earth are realms in which there are races or 
tribes (cf. Eth. Enoch 69:4; 71:1; 106:5; cf. the Rab. expression “‘higher families”’ 
for the angelic world) whose Father is God. 

3. (a) In Jn. the word ouranos, heaven, only occurs in the sing. This is an indica- 
tion that both gnostic and Jewish speculations about the heaven are absent. God’s 
will to save and the salvation effected by Jesus Christ determine the statements 
about heaven. Jesus comes from heaven and returns there. In principle the Son of 
man who has come down from heaven has much to say about heaven (epourania) 
and the plans of God concealed there. But such statements would call forth an 



even smaller response of faith than those he makes about God’s present activity on 
earth (Jn. 3:12 f., 31 f.). 

(b) 1 Cor. 15:40 refers to the bodily form of heavenly beings — whether stars 
or angelic powers. Christ, the pre-existent, risen and coming One, is the heavenly 
—> man, whose image, i.e. whose bodily form, Christians will receive at the parousia 
(1 Cor. 15:48 f.). All beings, even the heavenly ones, will bow the knee before the 
risen and exalted Jesus Christ (Phil. 2:10 f.). God has raised Jesus to his right hand, 
en tois epouraniois (from ta epourania, a circumlocution for heaven), i.e. in heaven, 
and thus blessed Christians with spiritual blessing (Eph. 1:3, 20). For spiritually they 
have already risen with Christ and been exalted to heaven (Eph. 2:6; cf. Ps. 110:1). 
The manifold wisdom of God will be made known to the principalities and powers 
in heaven (Eph. 3:10; the same phrase as above): the saving work of Christ has 
cosmic significance. According to 2 Tim. 4:18, Christ’s kingdom is epouranios, 1.e. 
it possesses heavenly authority and glory, and it is therefore superior to every 
temptation and persecution which the apostle has to suffer. H. Bietenhard 
—> Angel, — Demon, — Hand, — Height, — Hell, — Kingdom, — Myth, — Satan 

(a). K. Barth, CD III 3, 369-531; J.S. Bonnell, Heaven and Hell, 1956; P. G. Bretscher, ‘“‘Exodus 
4:22-23 and the Voice from Heaven’’, JBL 87, 1968, 301-11; R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 
1971; J.G. Davies, He Ascended into Heaven: A Study in the Historyof Doctrine (Bampton Lectures, 
1958), 1958; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, I, 1967, 186-209; T. H. Gaster, “‘Heaven’’, 
IDB II 551 f.; D. K. Innes, ““Heaven and Sky in the Old Testament’, EQ 43, 1971, 144-48; 
J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1951; R. Koch, ‘‘Ascension”, EBT I 37-42; K. Lake, ‘‘The 
Ascension” and ‘“‘The Mount of Olives and Bethany” in F. J. Foakes Jackson and K. Lake, eds., 
The Beginnings of Christianity, V, 1923, 16-22, 475 f.; A. T. Lincoln, ‘“‘A Re-Examination of ‘the 
Heavenlies’ in Ephesians’, NTS 19, 1972-73, 468-83; W. A. Meeks, ““The Man from Heaven in 
Johannine Sectarianism”’, JBL 91, 1972, 44-72; J. Michl, ‘““Heaven”, EBT I 363-69; W. Milligan, 
The Ascension and Heavenly Priesthood of our Lord, 1898; H. Odeberg, The View of the Universe 
in the Epistle to the Ephesians, Lunds Universitets Arsskrift N. F. Avd. 1, Band 29, Nr. 6, 1934; 
G. von Rad and H. Traub, ouranos, TDNT V 497-543; J. Schneider, baino, TDNT I 518-23; 
C. Schoonhoven, The Wrath of Heaven, 1966; U. Simon, Heaven in the Christian Tradition, 1958; 
W. M. Smith, The Biblical Doctrine of Heaven, 1968; and “‘Heaven’’, ZPEB III 60-64; L. I. J. 
Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 1970, 37-125; H. B. Swete, The Ascended 
Christ: A Study in the Earliest Christian Teaching, 1910; G. Widengren, The Ascension of the 
Apostle and the Heavenly Book, 1950. 

(b). G. Bertram, “‘Die Himmelfahrt Jesu vom Kreuz’’, Festgabe fiir A. Deissmann, 1927, 187-217; 
H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spatjudentum, WUNT 2, 1951; H. 
Diels, ““Himmels- und Hollenfahrten von Homer bis Dante’, Neue Jahrbiicher des klassischen 
Altertums, 50, 1922, 239-52; R. Eisler, Weltman telund Himmelszelt, 1910; T. Fligge, Die 
Vorstellung tiber den Himmel im Alten Testament 1937; G. K. Frank, Himmelund Holle, 1970; H. 
Gebhardt, “Der Himmel im Neuen Testament”, Zeitschrift fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft und 
kirchliches Leben 7, 1886, 555-75; H. Grass, Ostergeschehen und Osterberichte, 1970*; J. Haecke, 
J. Schmid, J. Ratzinger, LTK V 352-58; J. Heller, ““Himmelund Mollenfahrt nach Romer 10, 
6-7”, EuTh 5, 1972, 478 ff.; R. Holland, “Zur Typik der Himmelfahrt’’, ARW 23, 1925, 207-220; 
F. H. Kettler, ““Enderwartung und himmlischer Stufenbau im Kirchenbegriff des nachaposto- 
lischen Zeitalters”, TLZ 79, 1954, 358 ff.; A. Klawek, ‘‘Der Himmel als Wohnung der Seligen 
im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter’’, Collectanea Theologica, 13, 1932, 111-24; G. Lohfink, “‘Der 
historische Ansatz der Himmelfahrt Christi’, Catholica, 17, 1963, 44 ff.; E. Lohmeyer, Das 
Evangelium nach Matthaus, KEK Sonderband, 19623, 75 ff.; W. Michaelis, ““Zur Uberlieferung 
der Himmelfahrtgeschichte’’, TABI 4, 1925, 101-109; A. Oepke, ‘‘Unser Glaube an die Himmelfahrt 
Christi”, Luthertum, 5, 1938, 161-86; G. Schille, ““Die Himmelfahrt’”, ZNW 57, 1966, 183 ff.; 
H. Schlier, Christus und die Kirche im Epherbrief, BHTh 6, 1930; H. Westphal, ‘‘Jahves 
Wohnstatten”’, ZAW Beiheft 25, 1908, 251-73. 



Height, Depth, Exalt 

| Badoc | Baboc (bathos), depth; BaOvc (bathys), deep. 

cL 1. bathos is related linguistically to béssa (Doric bassa), valley floor, cleft. 
There is also a close connection with abyssos, bottomless (lit. unfathomable; 
—> Hell). 

2. bathos expresses distance from the speaker, but not only downwards. It can 
be horizontal or even upwards. bathos, therefore, denotes the extension of a thing 
in any spatial dimension (cf. bathos trichon, length of hair). In military usage 
bathos indicates the number of men standing behind one another. It is frequently 
used in conjunction with — hypsos to denote the full extent of an object in every 
dimension. Figuratively, bathos expresses: (a) the completeness, intensity, fullness 
or greatness of an object (especially in conjunction with hypsos), or of a human 
quality (wisdom, understanding, soul); and (b) inscrutability and hiddenness. 

The derived adj. bathys has the same shades of meaning as the noun. The neut. 
form used as a noun, to bathy, means that which is deep-seated, that which comes 
from the bottom of the heart. 

3. Hel. and especially gnostic religion took up the figurative meaning in speaking 
of the depth of deity and of — God as depth (Tert., Adv. Val. 1; Iren., Haer. 1, 21, 
2; Hippol., Haer. 5, 6, 4; cf. H. Schlier, 7DNT 1517). This last expression indicates 
that God was thought of primarily as a-personal and not as ““Thou”’ or “‘He’’, as 
something static and inscrutable and not as the Living One, the Self-Revealing. 

oT 1. In the OT (LXX) bathos is used chiefly as equivalent of Heb. m*silah. In its 

lit. meaning bathos is used only of the depth of the sea (Exod. 15:5; Neh. 9:11; 
Zech. 10:11). In its fig. sense bathos always denotes that which is separated from 
God. bathos, therefore, stands for the inner need of the man troubled by guilt and 
—> sin (Ps. 130[129]:1) and for the external need of pressing circumstances (Ps. 
69 :2,14[68 : 3,15]). bathos expresses the most extreme separation from God (the depths 
of the sea, Jon. 2:4; Mic. 7:19) in passages where the frontier between literal and 
figurative meanings is fluid. In Ezek. bathos stands for tahti and thus for the under- 
world (cf. 26:20; 31:14, 18; 32:18f., 24). Here, too, bathos expresses separation 
from God. Heb. ma‘*maggim, depths, is also rendered in the LXX bathos (Isa. 
51:10 etc.), while the adj. bathys is used for the words in the ‘amdg group (cf. Job 
11:8; 12:22; Ps. 63[64]:6; Prov. 18:4). 

2. It is significant that Heb. t*°h6m is not rendered bathos but abyssos (— Hell). 
English versions nevertheless translate it by deep (cf. Gen. 1:2; Job 28:14). While 
bathos always contains the idea of separation from God, abyssos suggests a final, 
primeval, terrible and mysterious depth. 

3. The Qumran texts speak of the depth of the mysteries of God (1QS 11:19; 
1QM 10:11). 

NT bathos appears 8 times in the NT; the adj. bathys 4. The literal sense occurs 

only in the Synoptics: depth of soil (Matt. 13:5 par. Mk. 4:5), the depth of the 
sea (Lk. 5:4). bathys is used figuratively in 2 Cor. 8:2 (deep poverty) to underline 
the extremity of the poverty. Elsewhere we find a figurative meaning related, not 
to the OT, but to Hel. and Rab. usage. 



1. Rom. 11:33 and | Cor. 2:10 speak of the depth of God or the depth of the 
knowledge of God. This refers to the unfathomable nature of the ways and judg- 
ments of God, as opposed to the mere superficiality of human insight. But it also 
suggests the richness of the ways and means available to God in the pursuit of his 
plan of salvation. It is important that God is not reduced here to an impersonal 
“Tt”. God is not described as the ultimate ground of all being, but as the One who 
has revealed himself in Jesus Christ in whom are hidden the ultimate mysteries. 
bathos reflects, therefore, the paradox of unveiling and veiling which is Christian > 

2. Similarly, in Eph. 3:18 bathos occurs in conjunction with other spatial terms 
in order to express the comprehensiveness of God’s grace and of salvation in Christ. 
Christian faith should not be satisfied with the fragmentary or the superficial. 

3. On the other hand, in Rom. 8:39 bathos is linked with hypsdma (cf. Isa. 7:11), 
and clearly describes some kind of power which oppresses mankind. In astrology 
bathos is the part of heaven below the horizon from which the stars rise. Powers 
emanating from the stars are perhaps intended here. What is theologically decisive, 
however, is the statement that even the powers (of the stars) of the deep have been 
defeated by the power of the love of God in Jesus Christ —a statement of great 
relevance even today. 

4. Of the four occurrences of the adj. bathys in the NT, only Rev. 2:24 is of 
theological significance (cf. Lk. 24:1; Jn. 4:11; Acts 20:9). Here the deep things 
of Satan are referred to, in parallel with the deep things of God. This takes up a 
slogan from a gnosticizing movement. What is meant is participation in all the 
ungodliness of this world (in order to “‘prove” the more effectively the power of grace 
and of salvation in Christ). To plunge into such depths, however, does not mean 
control over these powers but surrender to them and the consequent loss of 

salvation. J. Blunck 
| «OYWOS (Aypsos), high; bwydAdc (hypsélos), high, exalted, 
| eee | proud; bwampa (hypsoma), height, the exalted; bwiatoc 

(hypsistos), highest, most exalted. 

CL 1. hypsos, attested from Aeschylus on, denotes primarily extension upwards in 

space, height (only of things, not of people); figuratively (a) the superiority 
and exaltation of a thing or person over another; (b) unattainability. In the case of 
people hypsos could take the negative sense of — pride. In conjunction with 
—» bathos, it denotes the complete dimensions and aspects of an object. 

2. The adj. Aypsélos, attested from Homer on, was also originally spatial in 
meaning: high (buildings, plants, position), and was used figuratively in both a 
positive (sublime) and a negative sense (pompous, high-sounding). Secular Gk. had 
many compounds of hypsélos, but none came into the NT. Instead, there is a new 
formation, hypsélophroneo, to think highly (of oneself), to be proud (only 1 Tim. 

3. hypsoma is first attested in late Gk. after the translation of the LXX, meaning 
height, exaltation, what is exalted. It was always used in figurative senses, e.g. in 
Plutarch as an astrological term for the closest approach of a star to the zenith 
(opposite, tapeindma) (Arndt, 858). 



oT In the LXX hypsos stands for a variety of Heb. words (qomdah, marém, gabah). 

1. (a) It is used literally to denote the height of an object (the dark, Gen. 6:15 
[LXX 6:16]; a mountain, 2 Ki. 19:23; Ps. 95 [LXX 94]:4; the Temple, Ezr. 6:3; 
a tree, Ezek. 31:14). 

(b) Used absolutely, hypsos often denotes the heavenly realm (—> Heaven), the 
realm of God, that which is closely related to God (Heb. marém: Pss. 68:19 [LXX 
67:18]; 102:20 [LXX 101:19]; 144[LXX 143]:7; Isa. 40:26; cf. Isa. 7:11; also 
frequently in the Qumran texts). It is thus the opposite of — bathos (that which is 
separated from God). Thus both hypsos and hypsistos (e.g. Gen. 14:18 f.; Ps. 17 
[18]:13) can be simply a substitute for — God himself. (On Aypsistos see Arndt, 858.) 

(c) In relation to men, hypsos in Isa. 2:17 stands for human pride. In 1 Macc. 
10:24 it has the sense of encouragement. 

2. (a) The adj. hypsélos occurs in the LX X in as great a variety of meanings as in 
secular Gk. (60 times for Heb. bamdah; 43 times for derivatives of the root gabah; 31 
times for rim; 19 for nadtdh). Used as a noun, it acquired special significance. More 
emphatic than hypsos, it denotes the realm of God (Ps. 93[LXX 92]:4; Lam. 1:13), 
the place where God dwells (Isa. 33:5, 16; 57:15). The Spirit from on high (Isa. 
32:15) is the Spirit of God. 

(b) However, in a remarkable reversal of this usage, the word is also used to 
translate Heb. bamét, the Canaanite shrines and pagan high places (Jer. 19:5; 2 
Chr. 14:2; 17:6; Ezek. 6:3). 

NT 1. hypsos in the spatial sense occurs only in Rev. 21:16 in the description of the 
measurements of the new Jerusalem. Similarly hypsélos is used literally in 

Matt. 4:8; 17:1; Mk.9:2 and Rev. 21:10, 12 of mountains and walls. In these 

contexts the dimensional aspect is uppermost, but there are symbolic overtones. 

2. (a) Inaccord with OT usage, both words serve to denote the realm of God or his 
dwelling (Lk. 1:78) to which Jesus is exalted (Eph. 4:8 citing Ps. 68:19, — Heaven, 
art. anabaind; Heb. 1:3; cf. Ps. 110:1) to sit at God’s right — hand interceding 
for men (cf. Heb. 9:24). Even in the figurative meaning the spatial concept — in 
accordance with the ancient view of the world — still remains in the background 
(— Heaven). But it is not primary, for it has been transcended by the non-spatial. 
This is seen most clearly in Heb. 7:26. hypsélos here acquires the meaning of the 
wholly other in contrast to what man and the cosmos can conceive. 

In gnostic systems the thought is of the place, the sanctuary of God, beyond the 
heavenly spheres, which are filled with — angels and powers. This may be compared 
with the Epistle to the Hebrews where the exaltation of Christ is pictured in terms 
of the Day of Atonement ritual (cf. chs. 9-10 with Lev. 16). Having penetrated 
these heights, the high-priest Jesus Christ has been installed to exercise his sover- 
eignty. In this exaltation he experiences fulfilment because of his obedience in 
suffering, which reached its climax in Jesus’ sacrifice of himself on the cross (~ 
hypsoo). “But, above all, the doctrine of the sanctifying sacrifice on the cross is 
fitted into a scheme of thought in which the going up to heaven is the really import- 
ant event. In the Epistle to the Hebrews this going up to heaven corresponds to 
the High Priest’s going into the Sanctuary. This however cannot be done without 
a sacrifice. Thus the sacrifice on the cross opens to the new High Priest the way to 
heaven” (E. Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, 1960, 72). 



(b) Lk. 24:49 speaks of power from on high. Here likewise Aypsos is a peri- 
phrasis for — God and stands on the same footing as Rab. formulae for avoiding 
the Divine Name. The same is true of hypsistos, the Highest (e.g. Lk. 1:32, 35, 76; 
Acts 7:48). Acts 13:17 also reflects OT ideas (cf. Exod. 6:6). The arm is an expres- 
sion of the might and power of God. Describing this arm as hypsélos, raised, 
stretched out, is a vivid way of expressing the idea that God’s power is not in 
repose but in action. 

3. (a) In Jas. 1:9 hypsos appears in contrast with tapeinosis (— Humility, art. 
tapeinos), and is therefore best rendered “exaltation” (RSV; cf. “high position’, 
Arndt, 858). The passage refers to the salvation already given and yet still to come 
in Christ which paradoxically reverses all human relationships and in the faith 
exalts those who are lowly. The poor man (which in Jas. is a religious term virtually 
synonymous with Christian) is to hold fast here and now to this eschatological 
exaltation by faith. 

(b) On the other hand, since this exaltation is not something the Christian earns 
for himself for a quality which he possesses in himself but is Christ’s gift to him, he 
can be commanded not to think of himself as hypsélos (Rom. 11:20) but to asso- 
ciate with the lowly (Rom. 12:16). Since exaltation is the work of God, every 
personal desire for exaltation is an abomination to him (Lk. 16:15). 

4. The NT use of Aypsdéma probably reflects astrological ideas (see CL 3), and 
hence denotes cosmic powers. Rom. 8:39 and 2 Cor. 10:5 are both concerned with 
powers directed against God, seeking to intervene between God and man. They are 
possibly related to the stoicheia tou kosmou, the elemental powers of this world, (cf. 
Col. 2:8, 20). However high and mighty they may seem, they are to be strenuously 
resisted (2 Cor. 10:5) in the knowledge that not even they can separate the Christian 

from Christ (Rom. 8:39). J. Blunck 
; sos. 7 byow (hypsod), exalt, raise; baEpvyow (hyperhypsood), 
| tye raise above all heights. 

cL For etymology — hypsos. The idea of exaltation played an important role in the 

myths which were a part of the religious background of the OT. This is illus- 
trated by the concept of exaltation in the Babylonian creation epic, Eniima Elish 
(c. 1000 B.c.; cf. A. Heidel, The Babylonian Genesis, 19637; ANET, 60-72) which 
begins ““When above the heaven had not (yet) been named’. The mythological 
introduction to the work describes the struggle of the Babylonian god Marduk 
with the gods of chaos (the sea-dragon, Tiamat, and the primal usurper of divine 
sovereignty, Kingu). The victorious Marduk created the material world out of 
the divided halves of Tiamat and men out of the blood of Kingu. He is therefore 
raised in the assembly of the gods to the position of sovereignty over the world. He 
then correspondingly raises his earthly representative, Hammurabi, and installs 
him as ruler over men. 

A text from the Egyptian king myth (14th cent. B.c.) which belongs to the coro- 
nation liturgy of the god-king, also related how pharaoh Thut-mose III was raised 
by the sun god Ré himself to the realm of light, and there crowned and installed 
as the god’s son (cf. ANET, 373 ff.). 



The significance of exaltation is different in the Babylonian myths of Adapa 
(A. Heidel, op. cit., 147-53; ANET, 101 ff.) and Etana (ANET, 114 ff.). Adapa was 
the man who worked his way up to heaven and could not obtain the food of life 
there. The enterprise foundered on the punitive justice of the gods, who reduce 
man to the confines appointed to him. In the myth of Etana, Etana tried in vain to 
reach Ishtar’s throne in heaven on the back of an eagle which was under an obliga- 
tion to him. His aim was to achieve immortality without dying. Both myths involve 
an attempt at exaltation through man’s own efforts, whereas in the Babylonian 
creation myth and the Egyptian king myth the exaltation is the work of the 

OT hypsood occurs 150 times in the LXX, standing 94 times for the Heb. rim and 

its derivatives, 19 for gabah and its derivatives (9 out of 13 in Ezek.), 12 each 
for gadal and nasa’. hyperhypsoo occurs about 50 times, and has a Heb. equivalent 
in only 4. The basic meaning is exalt (Pss. 18 [LXX 17]:46; 27 [LXX 26]:5, 6; 30 
[LXX 29]:1; 34 [LXX 33]:3; 57 [LXX 56]:5, 11; 108 [LXX 107]:5; Exod. 15:2; 
Ezek. 28:2), be high (Pss. 89 [LXX 88]:13; 61 [LXX 60]:2); then by extension to 
stretch out (mostly of the hand, Isa. 23:4), to be loud (to raise the voice, Isa. 37:23; 
52:8), to grow (Ezek. 31:4, 10), to bring up (Isa. 14:26), to be beautiful (Isa. 4:2; 
Ps. 89 [LXX 88]:16; EVV exalt, extol), to praise (Pss. 107 [LXX 106]:32; 118 
[LXX 117]:28; EVV to exalt, extol). In the OT God alone has the right to exalt 
(and also to bring low, 1 Sam. 2:7). Man always runs the risk, therefore, of over- 
reaching himself by self-exaltation. Thus in a few passages hypsod acquires the 
meaning to be proud, haughty, presumptuous, arrogant (Pss. 37 [LXX 36]:20; 
131 [LXX 130]:1, 2; Ezek. 28:5). 

For the LXX, exaltation no longer has the same meaning as in the Babylonian 
and Egyptian myths. Nor does it have the same meaning as in the dualistic re- 
demption teaching of Hel. syncretism, where in a mystical and mythological 
system the concept of exaltation achieved decisive importance (cf. especially the 
excellent essay by G. Bertram referred to in the bibliography). The following LXX 
usages are theologically significant. 

(a) The exaltation of the righteous, i.e. of all those who in their extreme need 
through poverty, oppression, or deprivation of rights (+ Humility, art. prajs) 
seek help from Yahweh alone (cf. Pss. 37 [LXX 36:34]; 89 [LXX 88:17]; 112 
[LXX 111:9]). “In so far as it speaks of the exaltation of men, the LXX is concerned 
with a sociological question which as such is drawn into the light of revelation”’ 
(G. Bertram, op. cit., 71). The righteous man who encounters God experiences 
exaltation in his every-day circumstances lifting his life to a new plane. Thus the 
righteous man is promised a positive transformation of his present situation 
through Yahweh’s intervention. 

(b) The exaltation of God by the individual worshipper or the congregation. 
Behind this in the background is the liturgy for the festival of the god’s enthrone- 
ment in the Egyptian king myth which is important for the origin of the concept, 
but is no longer of any real significance. In the LXX the exaltation of God has 
already become a liturgical formula by which worshippers pay homage to God (e.g. 
Ps. 99 [LXX 98]:5, 9), and in which they acknowledge their loyalty to Yahweh as 
cosmic Lord above all other gods (cf. Ps. 97 [LXX 96]:9). Personal piety, however, 



also expresses itself by means of this liturgical formula: “‘magnify the Lord and let 
us exalt his name” (Ps. 34 [LXX 33]:3). In the OT the exaltation of Yahweh 
includes the exaltation of his people. The instalment of the earthly ruler in the 
enthronement Psalm corresponds to it (cf. Bertram, 50; cf. Ps. 148:14). 

(c) Self-exaltation, i.e. the exaltation that man seeks to bring about in independ- 
ence of the God who claims his obedience and provides for his needs (cf. Ps. 75 
[LXX 74]:4, 5). By exalting himself and in self-gratification relying on his own 
strength, man places himself in opposition to God and calls forth Yahweh’s 
humbling intervention (Ps. 75 [LXX 74]:7; Isa. 2:11, 17). 

To sum up, the LXX, in so far as it relies on the MT, has taken over the concept 
of exaltation from the latter’s religious environment, but has consistently demytho- 
logized it. Exaltation is a means of expressing God’s saving activity in the realm of 
earthly affairs and of testifying to man’s gratitude in worship and praise. Negatively 
it expresses man’s disobedient self-assertion. 

2. The apocalyptic writings of post-canonical Jewish literature were much more 
receptive to mythological ideas. Recalling Moses’ ascent to the mountain of God, 
temporary exaltation, understood realistically or ecstatically, became in the apo- 
cryphal tradition the vehicle of divine revelations (cf. Eth.Enoch 39:3; 52:1; 89:52; 
90:31; 2 Esd. 14:9, 49; Gr.Bar. 2 ff.). 

The righteous are promised a place in — heaven at a final exaltation (Dan. 7:22; 
Syr.Bar. 13:3). Enoch’s translation in the books associated with his name, during 
which he received his revelations close to God, plays a special role in this context. 
As son of man he is exalted to the highest heaven to the lord of spirits (Eth. Enoch 
70 ff.). 

The way of the righteous as it is described in Wis. 2: 10—20; 3: 7-10; 4:10 and 5: 
1—5 is also particularly worth mentioning. The ungodly do violence to the righteous 
man because he boasts of knowing God. He is ill-treated and killed so that God 
may demonstrate whether he is his son. God exalts him, and men do not under- 
stand. At the final judgment the righteous will oppose his adversaries to their 
terror, and will receive the kingdom of glory. ““The way of the righteous one 
depicted here is even in many details the way which Jesus has actually gone’”’ (E. 
Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, 1969, 30). 

3. Exaltation was understood differently in the mystery religions. Through the 
mysteries the way to exaltation was revealed to the soul, a way which the redeemer 
had trodden already. This way lead to a personal exaltation with the rebirth of the 
devotee. Here too exaltation received soteriological significance: it was the path 
to redemption which could be anticipated in ecstatic experience (— Knowledge, 
art. gindsko CL 2; on this subject see G. Wagner, Pauline Baptism and the Mystery 
Religions, 1967). 

NT /Aypso6 occurs 20 times in the NT. It means to make great, as in Paul’s speech 

in Acts 13:17 (the God, who made the people of Israel great in Egypt); to exalt 
(12 times as a contrast to bring low). The theologically important passages are 
those in which Aypsoo denotes the exaltation of Jesus (6 times: Jn. 3:14; 8:28; 
12:32, 34; Acts 2:33; 5:31). 

1. Behind the sayings on self-abasement and self-exaltation (Matt. 23:12; Lk. 
14:11; 18:14) lies the basic form of the two-part OT Jewish masal (cf. Job 22:29; 


Prov. 29:23; Sir. 3:18; and also oT | (a)). The righteous, lowly, humble and suffer- 
ing man is promised exaltation as a— reward. This teaching acquired a new 
significance in the context of the message of Jesus. Jesus put the whole of human 
life once more on the basis of obedience towards God (—> Hear). In so far as the 
Pharisees ascribed respect and honour to themselves, they were denying God the 
obedience of service. The true disciple must be ready to follow Jesus along the path 
of humility to suffering (cf. Lk. 14:27), in order selflessly to serve the despised, his 
neighbour. He is promised exaltation at the resurrection (Lk. 14:13 f.) and the 
fulfilment at the eschatological judgment of the promises made in the beatitudes 
(Matt. 5:1-12). This still future exaltation means justification before God in the 
final judgment on the ground of discipleship. However, the immediate present 
already takes on a new form for the disciple in anticipation. The man who exalts 
himself is the man who, having attempted to secure his life, will lose it in God’s 
eschatological judgment (cf. Lk. 17:33; cf. also Lk. 1:52; 10:12, 15 par. Matt. 
10:15). In their exhortations, therefore, 1 Pet. 5:6 and Jas. 4:10 warn Christians 
to submit to God (or to his — hand), in order to share in exaltation in the future 
—> glory. 

2. (a) The first christological statements, following the description of the way 
of the righteous in Israel, clearly see the resurrection and the exaltation of Jesus 
together. This is particularly plain in Acts 2:33 and 5:31 which describe as exalta- 
tion Jesus’ resurrection and his installation as Lord (cf. 2:36). As these passages 
suggest a different emphasis to the Lucan theology of the ascension in Acts 1, 
we must be dealing here with earlier tradition. According to this tradition, the 
Easter event was the decisive event for salvation, because in it the crucified One 
was installed as Lord and Christ, 1.e. exalted (Acts 2:36). Jesus’ exaltation signifies 
the completion of God’s action in his — anointed and at the same time the begin- 
ning, continuance and the expected fulfilment of Christ’s Lordship over church and 

(b) The concept of exaltation also occurs in the hymn quoted by Paul in Phil. 
2:5-11 (2:9 hyperhypsdsen). Jesus’ humiliation (vv. 6-8) is contrasted with his 
exaltation (vv. 9-11). His exaltation is the consequence of his obedience in suffering 
and consists in his designation as sovereign, not only over the community of 
believers but over the whole universe. In granting to Jesus the new name of — Lord 
(Kyrios), believers acknowledge in his exaltation Christ’s victory, i.e. a transfer of 
authority over the universe (cf. Col. 1:19, 20). (On Phil. 2:5-11 — Empty, art. 
kenos; — Form, arts. morphé and schéma.) Similar statements expressed in different 
language occur frequently in the NT: e.g. Rom. 1:4 “designated [horisthentos] 
Son of God’ (~ Determine, art. horizo); 1 Tim. 3:16 “taken up [anelémphthé] in 
glory’. In this exaltation (1 Tim. 3:16) “Jesus is ‘vindicated’. This is also the oldest 
comment in which the Easter events constitute the justification of the way of Jesus. 
They demonstrate that Jesus was ‘the Righteous One’ ”’ (E. Schweizer, op. cit., 65). 
Justification resulted in the victorious return to the Father and in the enthronement 
of the Saviour. “Here even more than in Phil. 2:9-11 it is emphasized that his 
dominion is so all-embracing that it has welded heaven and earth together again”’ 
(E. Schweizer, op. cit., 66). 

(c) The concept of exaltation plays an important part in the christology of Jn., 
where it is used, as frequently in the OT, in parallel with glorification, doxazd 



(— Glory, art. doxa; e.g. Jn. 17:5 see above oT 1). The idea of exaltation plays a 
similar part in the christology of Heb., although the word hypsoo itself is not used 
(cf. 2:7 “crowned”; 1:9 “‘anointed’’; 1:13; 10:12; 12:2 “seated at the right hand 
of God”’; 5:5). Jn. takes over the idea of the exaltation of the righteous, as it had 
already appeared in the LXX but where it had been understood historically in 
terms of this world, or psychologically. But more particularly Jn. takes over the 
form of the idea present in Jewish apocryphal writing (Eth.Enoch, 2 Esd., Jub., 
Syr. Bar). and in Rab. literature, and corrects it. The object of this correction is to 
show that there is only one exaltation, the exaltation of Christ (3:14; 8:28; 12:32, 
34). Like anabaino (—> Heaven), hypsoo is a periphrasis for the return of the revealer 
from the world to his heavenly home (cf. R. Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 1971, 
152 f.). If, with E. Schweizer, we accept that Jesus saw himself as the — Son of 
man, in order in this one term to embrace the double nature of his activity as of 
this world in humiliation and suffering and as exalted in full authority and glory 
(op. cit., 41), then Jn. uses this idea consistently and already describes the cruci- 
fixion as the exaltation of Jesus (Jn. 3:14; 8:28; cf. 12:34). In a unique ambiguity 
the concept of exaltation is applied both to the physical act of being lifted up on the 
cross and to the exaltation to new glory, power and honour. This can only be 
understood on the basis of Jn.’s view of Jesus’ death as the ultimate consequence 
and goal of his obedience. This means that in the eyes of the world, his goal is 
nothing more than the lifting up on the cross. “Yet they do not suspect that by 
‘lifting him up’ they themselves make him their judge. The double-meaning of 
‘lifting up’ is obvious. They lift Jesus up by crucifying him; but it is precisely 
through his crucifixion that he is lifted up to his heavenly glory as the Son of Man. 
At the very moment when they think that they are passing judgment on him he 
becomes their judge” (Bultmann, op. cit., 350). By contrast, the believer recognizes 
in Jesus’ obedience unto death his complete oneness with the Father, and thus 
knows that the crucifixion is the return of the Son to glory, and redemption for the 
believer (Jn. 12:32). The lifting up on the cross, therefore, is the beginning of exal- 
tation into the glory of the Father. The Johannine teaching on exaltation is Jn.’s 
counterpart to the realistic presentations of the ascension in the synoptics. 

(d) The statements about the humiliation of God in Jesus Christ and his exalta- 
tion have affinities with views from the OT, from extra-canonical and Rab. Jewish 
writings and from gnostic thought. In the NT as in the OT exaltation is, however, 
understood not in terms of myth but of history. Despite the great variety of christo- 
logical statements and developments in the NT, there is one essential concern 
which is contained in the concept of the exaltation of Jesus and is preserved in all 
the NT writings. It is that the crucified is the One whom God has called to life to 
be Lord of the dead and of the living (Rom. 14:9), who has conquered every power 
and dominion including sin and death, so that under his Lordship the company of 
believers may go on its way comforted. D. Miiller 
—> Heaven, — Hand, — Hell 

(a). K. Barth, ‘““‘The Exaltation of the Son of Man’, CD IV 2, 3-377; G. Bertram, Aypsos etc. 
TDNT 602-20; O. Cullmann, The Christology of the New Testament, 1959; E. Lohse, Colossians 
and Philemon, Hermeneia, 1971; G. H. C. Macgregor, “Principalities and Powers: the Cosmic 
Background to Paul’s Thought’, N7S 1, 1954-55, 17-28; K. H. Schelkle, “‘Exaltation”, EBT J 
242 f.; H. Schlier, bathos, TDNT 1 517 f.; E. Schweizer, Lordship and Discipleship, 1960; P. H. 



Vaughan, The Meaning of ‘badma@’ in the Old Testament: A Study of Etymological Textual and 
Archaeological Evidence, Society for Old Testament Study Monograph Series 3, 1974. On passages 
in the Psalms see the commentaries by A. A. Anderson, I-II (New Century Bible, 1972) and A. 
Weiser (Old Testament Library, 1962). 

(b). G. Bertram, “Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund der Erhohung in der LXX”’, ZAW 68, 
1956, 57 ff.; H. Bleienstein, ‘“‘Der erhéhte Christus’’, Geist und Leben 27, 1954, 84-90; J. Daniélou, 
‘““La session a la droite du Pére’’, in The Gospels Reconsidered: A Selection of Papers read at the 
International Congress on the Four Gospels in 1957, 1960, 68-77; W. Thusing, Die Erhéhung und 
Verherrlichung Jesu im Johannesevangelium, Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen 21, 1, 1960; A. 
Vergote, “‘L’exaltation du Christ en croix selon le quatrieme évangile”’, Ephemerides Theologicae 
Lovanienses 28, 1952, 5—23. 

Hell, Abyss, Hades, Gehenna, Lower Regions 

In speaking about the ultimate fate of the dead the Bible makes use of a variety 
of concepts. In some cases they are simply taken over under outside religious 
influence, but in others there has been a subsequent characteristic transformation. 
There is no unified picture of an unambiguously formulated doctrine, and the 
power of — death must also be seen in the light of the victory of the — cross. 
hadés is the temporary abode of the dead, to which they are banished. It is not 
clear whether the rare term katoteros stands for the depths of the human world, 
threatened by death, or the depths of the realm of the dead itself. Judaism is the 
source of the two terms abyssos and gehenna. abyssos means a particular place of 
terror which constitutes a refuge for demons; gehenna is the eschatological fiery 
hell to which the ungodly will be eternally condemned at the last — judgment. 
—> Heaven; — Life; — Paradise; — Time. 

| adfvadoc | dfvaaoc (abyssos), abyss, pit, underworld. 

CL & OT abyssos is really an adj., meaning bottomless, unfathomable. Used by 

itself with the noun gé (earth) understood, it means a bottomless place, hence 
abyss. In late Gk. the word stood for the primal deep, the primal ocean, the realm 
of the dead, the underworld. 

It occurs about 25 times in the LXX, mostly to translate Heb. t*hém, the primal 
ocean (Gen. 1:2), deep waters (Ps. 42:7 [LXX 41:7]), the realm of the dead (Ps. 
71:20 [LXX 70:20]). Rab. Judaism also maintained the meaning primal flood for 
t°~hom. However, the word also stands for the interior of the earth, where bodies are 
found which cause uncleanness. The abyss also came to stand for the prison of 
fallen spirits (Eth.Enoch 10:4 ff.; 18:11 ff.; Jub. 5:6 ff.). 

NT In the NT abyssos is the prison for — demons (Lk. 8:31; Rev. 9:1 f.). It is 
closed, but the smoke of subterranean fires rises from it (Rev. 9:1 f.). It is ruled 
by a prince — not — Satan (Rev. 9:11). Weird creatures emerge from it (Rev. 
9:3 ff.), as does the beast (— Animal; — Antichrist, Rev. 11:7; 17:8). Satan is 
bound in it for the thousand years’ reign (Rev. 20:1, 3). 
Rom. 10:7 f., following the LXX of Ps. 106:26 (MT 107:26), uses the word to 
describe the realm of the dead. It is impossible for a living man to descend into the 
abyssos. H. Bietenhard 



= gonc (hadés), Hades, the underworld, the realm of the 
gonc dead. 

CL The etymology of the word hadés is uncertain. It either comes from idein (to 
see) with the negative prefix, a-, and so would mean the invisible; or it is 
connected with aianés, and would have meant originally gloomy, gruesome. 
hadés occurs in Homer (in the form of Aidés) as the proper name of the god 
of the underworld (//., 15, 188), while in the rest of Gk. literature it stands for the 
underworld as the abode of the dead who lead a shadowy existence in it (cf. 
Hesiod, Theog. 455; Homer, Od. 4, 834). After Homer it can mean the grave, death. 
Only gradually did the Gks. also attach to the concept the ideas of — reward and 
—> punishment. The good and the righteous were rewarded in hadés, the wicked and 
the godless received a variety of punishments there. In cl. Gk. it is also spelled 
Aidés (Ionic), Aidas (Doric). 

oT |. In the LXX hadés occurs more than 100 times, in the majority of instances 

to translate Heb. §°’6/, the underworld which receives all the dead. It is a land of 
darkness, in which God is not remembered (Job 10:21 f.; 26:5; Ps. 6:5; 30:9 
[LXX 29:9]; 115:17 [LXX 113:25]; Prov. 1:12; 27:20; Isa. 5:14). These concepts 
cannot be squared exactly with that of the grave of the ancestors, the family burial 
place, where the dead are to be found. What is decisive is the theological statement 
that Yahweh does not remember the dead, that they are cut off from him and out- 
side his activity in history (Ps. 88:5, L1[LXX 87:5, 11]). They also stand outside 
the cult and its influence. In death there is no proclamation or praise (Ps. 88:11 
[LXX 87:11]; Isa. 38:18). The dead are unclean and therefore, in sharp contrast 
with surrounding religions, Israel’s dead enjoyed no sacral worship. There was no 
cult of the dead, and necromancy was expressly forbidden (Deut. 18:11). The 
exceptional case of | Sam. 28:7 ff. and the mention of the raising of a dead boy 
(2 Ki. 4:32 ff.) suggest that there was no rigid divide between dead and living. 
But no one in Israel could comfort himself with the hope of one day being re- 
united with the departed. The shades themselves suffer under their decay (Job 
14:21 f.). 

On the other hand, §°’6/ not only lies on the border of life in the beyond. It also 
penetrates the circle of the living on every side, through illness, weakness, imprison- 
ment, oppression by enemies and by death. Thus the psalmist in his prayers can 
say that he has already in a sense been in §°’6/, but has been rescued by Yahweh. 
It was possible also for Israel to equate with §°’6/ the — wilderness, or at least to 
attribute the qualities of death to it (Jer. 2:6, 31). Wherever the voice of Yahweh 
is not heard or he abandons a man, there the reality of — death and s°6/ begins 
(Job 12:24 ff.). Dying, therefore, is not a bio-physical process; it is the disintegra- 
tion or ending of the life-relationship with Yahweh. Nevertheless, Yahweh’s 
power does not cease at the frontier of the realm of the dead (Amos 9:2; Ps. 139:8 
[LXX 138:8]), although he is not concerned about the realm of the dead. “The 
realm of the dead remained an indefinable third party between Yahweh and his 
creation” (G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, U, 1965, 350). Only exceptionally 
did faith (Job 14:13-22) or the poetic imagination (Isa. 14:9 ff.; Ezek. 32:20 ff.) 
concern themselves with the realm of the dead. There are only isolated hints at hope 



beyond death (Job 19:25-27; Ps. 49 [LXX 48]; 73:23 ff. [LXX 72:23 ff.]). So at the 
frontiers of the OT there appears the hope of — resurrection (— Death, oT 2; cf. 
H. H. Rowley, The Faith of Israel, 1956, 150-76). 

2. In Rab. Judaism, under Persian and Hel. influence, the doctrine of the immort- 
ality of the — soul appeared, and this altered the concept of hadés. The earliest 
attestation of this doctrine is Eth.Enoch 22. This chapter is closely related to Lk. 
16:22 ff. (cf. also Eth.Enoch 51:1; 102:5; 103:7; 2 Macc. 6:24): reward and 
punishment begin, after death, in hadés. According to Josephus (Ant. 18, 14; cf. 
War 2, 163; 3, 375; SB IV 1166, 1182 ff.), this was the position of the — Pharisees 
and the Essenes, in contrast to that of the — Sadducees. A later view states that the 
souls of the righteous, after death, enter heavenly blessedness, while the souls of 
the ungodly are punished in hadés. hadés thus lost its role as the resting place of all 
souls and became a place of punishment for the souls of the ungodly (cf. Eth.Enoch 
63:10; Pss.Sol. 14:6 f.; 15:11; Gr. Bar. 4). 

Under the influence of the doctrine of the — resurrection hadés lost its role as 
the eternal resting place of souls and became a preparatory, temporary resting 
place for souls until the resurrection (cf. Eth.Enoch 51:1; Test.Ben. 10; Sib. 4:178- 
190; 2 Esd. 5:45). 2 Esd. 7:78-100 attempts to establish a compromise between the 
doctrines of immortality and of the resurrection. According to this, the souls of the 
righteous enjoy for a time in the beyond a foretaste of the blessedness which will 
be theirs after the resurrection. The ungodly, on the other hand, receive a fore- 
taste of the punishment that awaits them after the last judgment. This compromise 
did not prevail in Judaism. 

NT In the NT hadés occurs 10 times, and that only in Matt., Lk., Acts and Rev. 
In the other writings other terms occur (— abyssos; — gehenna). 

1. Hades lies within the earth, so that one has to go down to it (Matt. 11:23; 
Lk. 10:15; cf. Matt. 12:40 kardia tés gés, the heart of the earth). It is a prison 
(phylaké, | Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:7). Like a city or town it has — gates (Matt. 16:18), 
and is locked with a key which Christ holds in his hand (Rev. 1:18). The gates 
“‘will not close to imprison (in death) those who belong to the messianic com- 
munity” (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 261). On the other hand, Rev. 
20:14 seems to indicate that Hades, like — death, may be thought of as a person. 
At the resurrection Hades must give up its dead again (Rev. 20:13). So it is not an 
eternal but only a temporary place or state. According to Acts 2:27, 31 and Lk. 
16:23, 26, all the dead are in Hades. According to other passages, only the spirits 
of the ungodly are in Hades (1 Pet. 3:19; Rev. 20:13 f.). According to Rev. 20:4, 
the martyrs will rise and reign with Christ for a thousand years (~~ Number; — 
Glossary of Technical Terms, art. Chiliasm). 

2. A NT innovation, by comparison with Judaism, is the fact that Jesus has 
risen to an eternal life (Heb. 7:16). He has taken the power of death and the devil 
from them (Heb. 2:14), and is Lord of the dead and of the living (Rom. 14:9). 
Through faith in Christ ideas are transformed: Hades cannot affect the church 
(Matt. 16:18 f.; 1 Pet. 3:19 ff.; 4:6; Rev. 1:18). Anyone who dies is united with 
Christ (Phil. 1:23; 2 Cor. 5:8) —even though naked, i.e. without a body (2 Cor. 
5:2 f.) — or is in the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb. 12:22), or under the heavenly altar 
(Rev. 6:9) like the martyrs, or before God’s throne (Rev. 7:9; 14:3). Christ has 



preached to the spirits in prison (1 Pet. 3:19 ff.; 4:6). The saving work of Jesus 
Christ embraces the dead, and nothing is beyond the grace of Christ. 

3. The fact that in the NT there is no description of ideas about the beyond must 
be connected with this emphasis on the all-embracing dominion and grace of Christ. 
There is no doctrine of the beyond or any geography of the beyond. This is in sharp 
contrast to certain Rab. Jewish and also Christian writings down to Dante’s 
Divine Comedy. Perhaps, however, it was the very silence of the NT about the 
details of the beyond and of the temporary state which excited the curiosity of the 
pseudo-pious and led to dissatisfaction with placing one’s hope in Christ alone. 
The idea that the statements of scripture have to be enlarged upon by human 
imagination indicates a lack of faith. A contributory factor here is the substitution 
of the Gk. doctrine of the immortality of the soul in place of the NT doctrine of the 
resurrection of the dead (1 Cor. 15). This comes about in unreflective Christianity 
which fails tx ask whether the belief is grounded in the NT or in pagan Gk. thought. 

H. Bietenhard 

| réena | yéewva (gehienna), Gehenna, hell 

oT The word gehenna does not appear in the LXX or Gk. literature. It is the Gk. 

form of the Aram. géhinnam, which in turn goes back to the Heb. géhinnom. This 
originally denoted a valley lying to the south of Jerusalem (today, Wadi er-Rabdabi), 
the valley of the son (or sons) of Hinnom (Jos. 15:8; 18:16; Isa. 31:9; 66:24; Jer. 
32:35; 2 Chr. 33:6). (See L. H. Grollenberg, Atlas of the Bible, 1957, 96, 114f., 
152.) Child sacrifices were offered in this valley (2 Ki. 16:3; 21:6). Josiah had it 
desecrated (2 Ki. 23:10). According to Jer. 7:32; 19:6f., it will be the place of 
God’s judgment. 

Jewish apocalyptic assumed that this valley would become, after the final 
judgment, the hell of fire (Eth.Enoch 90:26 f.; 27:1 ff.; 54:1 ff.; 56:3 f.). H ‘nce the 
name gehenna came to be applied to the eschatological hell of fire in genéral, even 
when it was no longer localized at Jerusalem (e.g. 2 Esd. 7:36; Syr.Bar. 59:10; 
85:13, Sib. 1:103). In time gehenna became simply the place of punishment and so 
attracted the corresponding ideas about Hades (— hadés). gehenna thus became a 
temporary place of punishment (until the final judgment). At about the end of the 
Ist cent. A.D. or the beginning of the 2nd the doctrine of a fiery purgatory arose 
among the Rabbis. All those in whose cases merit and guilt are equally balanced 
go to gehenna. There they are purified and, if they do penance, inherit paradise. 
Alongside this we find the concept of an eschatological Gehinnom judgment, 
limited in time, after the last judgment (SB IV 1022-1118). 

NT For the NT gehenna was a pre-existent entity (Matt. 25:41), a fiery abyss (Matt. 

13:42, 50). It was the place of eschatological punishment after the last judgment, 
punishment of eternal duration (Matt. 25:41, 46; 23:15, 33). Body and soul are 
judged in it (Mk. 9:43, 45, 47 f.; Matt. 10:28). It was also to be distinguished from 
Hades which houses the souls of the dead before the last judgment. The same 
punishment will overtake — Satan and the > demons, the beast (> Animal) from 
the abyss, the false — prophet,» death and Hades (Matt. 25:41; 8:29; Rev. 



19:20; 20:10, 14f.). In contrast with later Christian writings and ideas, the torments 
of hell are not described in the NT, “If they are mentioned, it is only to rouse 
consciences to fear of the wrath of the heavenly Judge” (J. Jeremias, 7DNT I 658; 
cf. Matt. 10:28; Lk. 12:5). Neither does the NT contain the idea that Satan is the 
prince of gehenna, to whom sinners are handed over for punishment. 

H. Bietenhard 

| KATWTEPOG | Katwtepoc (katoteros), lower. 

CL & OT katoteros is the comparative of kato, under. In the LXX it stands for 
tahton and occurs mostly in the Pss. to denote any area in which life is threatened, 
or the realm of the dead itself (Pss. 62[63]:9; 85[86]:13; 87[88]:6; 138[139]:15). 

NT In the NT the word occurs only in Eph. 4:9 (Christ descended) eis ta katotera 
meré tés gés, “into the lower parts of the earth’’. 

The following questions arise: Is the comparative katéteros here used in the sense 
of the superlative (into the lowest regions of the earth) or of the positive (into the 
regions of the earth, which lie below; so Radermacher, see bibliography)? Is gés a 
gen. of apposition? In that case the expression would mean, the lowest parts, 
namely the earth. If gés is a partitive gen. the expression would mean the lowest 
parts of the earth. Funk § 167, following F. Biichsel, 7DNT III 641, takes it to 
mean the regions under the earth. Does katdteros correspond to the expression 
which occurs in the OT, the lowest (regions) of the earth, which can refer to the 
earth itself (Ps. 139:15 [LXX 138:15]) and also to Hades, lying under the earth 
(Ps. 63:9 [LXX 62:9]; Tob. 13:2)? According to a Rab. tradition (attested around 
A.D. 250 in R. Jehoshua b. Levi), one of the names for Gehinnom (— geenna) was 
lowest land, lowest earth (Heb. eres hattahtit, cf. Erub. 19a; SB IV 1023 f.). Hence 
the phrase, the lower parts of the earth, could be a rendering of this Heb. expression. 

It is possible that Eph. was dependent on an older Jewish exposition of Ps. 68:18 
[LX X 67:18]. Moses ascended into heaven to receive the Torah and to transmit it 
to men (SB II 596). This exposition was then applied to Christ. The ascent of which 
the Ps. speaks is to be referred to the same person (Christ) who previously descended 
(—> Heaven, art. anabaino for alternative exegesis of Eph. 4:8). Then the question 
arises whether “the descended’”’ and “‘the lower parts of the earth’? must not refer 
to the death of Jesus. Jesus’ death belongs to his full manhood. Anyone who dies, 
according to the Jewish view, goes into the realm of the dead; and this realm of the 
dead lies under the earth (— hadés). So this passage would not imply an actual 
battle with Hades which the redeemer had to fight, but only the entering of the 
dead Jesus into the realm of the dead (F. Biichsel, TDNT III 641; — Flesh, NT 2 

If the view is correct, that Jesus became man in such a way that he took man’s 
final destiny upon himself and had to descend into the realm of the dead, light is 
thrown on the statement of Eph. 1 :20—23. The “all in all’ which he fills means the 
highest — heights and the lowest depth (the realm of the dead). It also means that 
he has thus received power over all beings, in particular over the spirits. 

Other passages in Eph. which deal with Jesus’ death speak only of an event on 
earth (Eph. 5:2, 25). In any case, even if it is the death of Jesus and his related 



entering into Hades that the passage has in mind, this latter idea is emphasized. 
Moreover, no weight at all is attached to the spatial concept. Ultimately it 
matters little whether the earth itself or regions lying beneath its surface are meant 
here. What is important is the fact that Christ is the exalted One and conqueror of 
all powers and dominions, and that as such he gives — gifts to his church. In 
modern exposition the reference of this passage to the descensus ad inferos (“‘he 
descended into hell’’ in the Apostles’ Creed) is almost without exception rejected 
(cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 1972°, 378-88 for the historical back- 
ground of the idea). H. Bietenhard 
—> Death, — Demon, — Fire, — Gate, — Heaven, — Judgment, — Satan 

(a). J. S. Bonnell, Heaven and Hell: A Present-Day Christian Interpretation, 1956;S.G. F. Brandon, 
The Judgment of the Dead: An Historical and Comparative Study of the Idea of a Post-Mortem 
Judgment in the Major Religions, 1967; and Man and his Destiny in the Great Religions, 1962; 
H. Buis, The Doctrine of Eternal Punishment, 1957; and ‘Hell’, ZPEB III 114 ff.; F. Bitchsel, 
kato etc, TDNT Ill 640 ff.; R. Bultmann, ‘“‘Polis and Hades in Sophocles’ Antigone’, Essays 
Philosophical and Theological, 1953, 22-35; W. Eichrodt, ““The Underworld’’, Theology of the 
Old Testament, Il, 1967, 210-28; T. H. Gaster, Thespis, 1950; and ‘“‘Dead, Abode of the’’, JDB I 
787 f.; J. Jeremias, abyssos, TDNT19f.; geenna, TDNTI1 657 f.; hadés, TDNT I 146-49; J. N. D. 
Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 19723, 378-88; J. Kiurzinger, ‘‘Descent into Hell”, EBT I 202-6; 
F. Loofs, *‘Descent to Hades (Christ’s)”, ERE IV 654-63; J. A. MacCulloch, ‘“‘Descent to Hades 
(Ethnic), ERE 1V 648-54; and The Harrowing of Hell, 1930; J. Michl, ‘‘Hell”’, EBT I 369 ff.; 
B. Reicke, The Disobedient Spirits and Christian Baptism, 1946; S.S. Smalley, ““The Eschatology 
of Ephesians’, EQ 28, 1956, 152-7; L. 1. J. Stadelmann, The Hebrew Conception of the World, 
1970; H. Vorgrimler, ‘“‘Christ’s Descent into Hell: Is it Important ?”, Concilium, I 2, 1966, 75-81. 
(b). C. Barth, Die Errettung vom Tode in den individuellen Klage- und Dankliedern des Alten 
Testaments, 1947; G. Beer, ‘“‘Der Biblische Hades’’, in Theologische Abhandlungen zu Ehren H. J. 
Holtzmanns, 1902; A. Bertholet, Die israelitischen Vorstellungen vom Zustande nach dem Tode, 
1899; and ‘‘Zu den babylonischen und israelitischen Unterweltvorstellungen’’, Festschrift Paul 
Haupt, 1926, 8-18; H. Bietenhard, Die himmlische Welt im Urchristentum und Spdatjudentum, 
1951; and ‘“‘Kennt das Neue Testament die Vorstellung vom Fegefeuer ?’’, ThZ 3, 1947, 101 ff.; P. 
Dhorme, ‘‘Le séjour des morts chez les Babyloniens et les Hébreux’’, RB4, 1908, 59-78; E. Ebeling 
Tod und Leben nach den Vorstellungen der Babylonier, 1, 1931; J. Felten, Neutestamentliche Zeit- 
geschichte, Il, 1925°, 227-42, 258-63; J. Gnilka and J. Ratzinger, LTK V 445-49; G. K. Frank, 
Himmel und Holle, 1970; F. C. Grant, W. von Soden, H.-J. Kraus, B. Reicke, ““Hdlle’’, RGG? III 
400 ff.; A. Grillmeier, ‘‘Der Gottessohn im Totenreich’’, Z7K 71, 1949, 1-53, 184-203; and in 
LTK V 450-55; J. Kroll, Gott und Holle, 1932; A. Lods, La Croyance a la Vie Future et le Culte 
des Morts dans I’ Antiquité Israélite, 1906; G. Quell, Die Auffassung des Todes in Israel, 1925; T. 
Sartory and G. Sartory-Reidick, Jn der Holle brennt kein Feuer, 1968; SB III 596 f.; IV 2, 1016 ff.; 
K. Schilder, Wat is de Hel ?, 1930; F. Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, 1892; C. Spicq, “La 
revelation de l’enfer dans la Sainte Ecriture’’, in G. Bardy et al., L’Enfer, 1950, 91-143; K. Tallquist, 
Sumerisch-akkadische Namen der Totenwelt 1934; P. Volz, Die Eschatologie der jiidischen Gemeinde 
im neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1934, 256-72, 309-32. 

Herb, Plant, Grass 

| Adxavov | Aayavov (lachanon), herb, vegetable; Botavy (botané), 
plant; dvy@ov (anéthon), dill; m7dboapuov (hédyosmon), 

mint; KUuvov (kyminon), cummin; myyavov (péganon), rue; yoptoc (chortos), 

grass, hay. 

CL In secular Gk. /achanon, related to lachaino (dig), denotes garden herbs and 

vegetables, as opposed to wild plants (Epicrates, Plato). botané, from bosko 


(graze), is used of pasture, herbs, weeds. anéthon means dill, the plant Anethum 
graveolens, employed in seasoning. hédyosmon is mint (Mentha viridis, M. longifolia) 
derived from hédys, sweet, pleasant, and osmaomai, smell. kyminon, cummin, is the 
aromatic seed of Cuminum cyminum, grown for flavouring dishes; used proverbially 
of a skinflint prepared to saw the tiny seed in half (Sophron). péganon is rue, the 
culinary and medicinal herb Ruta graveolens. chortos means an enclosed feeding 
space; by extension, pasturage; and so fodder, grass, hay. 

OT Four of the above terms appear in the LXX, but with one exception only in the 

literal sense. (a) /Jachanon as in secular Gk. stands for edible herbs and vege- 
tables. (b) botané translates dese’ (grass), from a Heb. verb meaning to sprout 
abundantly (Gen. 1:11; Jer. 14:5); ‘éseb (cultivated plants) in Exodus (e.g. 9:22); 
and hasir (herbage in general, Job 8:12). (c) Kyminon transliterates the Heb. kam- 
mon, cummin (Isa. 28:25, 27). (d) chortos nearly 50 times renders the Heb. ‘ésed, 
seed-bearing annuals springing up after rain: grass, weeds, vegetables, cereals. The 
character of chortos inspires metaphors and similes. Defeated enemies are like 
down-trodden grass (4 Ki. 19:26); men flourish like sprouting grass (Ps. 71:16) 
and as suddenly wilt (Ps. 101:4, 11), for human life is transient (Isa. 40:6). 

NT 1. Primary Meanings. In the NT lachanon is consistently used for herbs (Lk. 

11:42) and chortos for grass (Matt. 14:19) or the early grasslike blades of crops 
(Matt. 13:26). Jesus deplores the Pharisees’ concern for tithing insignificant herbs 
(lachanon) like mint (hédyosmon), rue (péganon), dill (anéthon), and cummin 
(kyminon), to the neglect of weightier matters (Matt. 23:23; Lk. 11:42), and in 
excess of the law’s requirements (Deut. 14:22-23). 

2. Extended Meanings. (a) In Rom 14:2 Paul refers to certain converts from 
Judaism eating only vegetables (/Jachanon) because their feeble grasp of Christian 
liberty keeps them from disregarding either Jewish dietary laws or the possibility 
that shop-meat has been associated with pagan sacrifices. (b) In Heb. 6:7 respon- 
sive believers are likened to fertile land heavy with crops (botané). (c) Human life is 
transitory like chortos (grass) (Jas. 1:10, 11; 1 Pet. 1:24, quoting Isa. 40:6, 7). 
chortos (hay), possible but poor building material, illustrates unsatisfactory Chris- 
tian service (1 Cor. 3:12). God’s care over short-lived grass guarantees his far 
greater concern for human needs (Matt. 6:30). — Fullness, art. chortazo. 

N. Hillyer 

G. Bornkamm, lachanon, TDNT IV 65 ff.; H. N. and A. L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, 1952; 
A. E. Riithy, Die Pflanze und ihre Teile, 1942; W. Walker, All the Plants of the Bible, 1957. 

Hide, Conceal 

Both vbs. dealt with here have the same primary meaning, to hide. But whereas 
kalypto is used more in the sense of to cover or conceal, the more frequently used 
vb. Arypté means to hide away, make secret. However, the meaning cannot always 
be precisely distinguished. In theological use they occur in contexts chiefly concerned 
with man’s ability to see and experience, on the one hand, and the will and activity 
of God, on the other. Often they are used in passages asserting that God will make 
himself, or what is hidden, open to human experience or sight. 



; Kadvat@ (kalyptéd), cover, hide, conceal; dvaxadintw 
KaAvnTM Z Ne : 
(anakalypto), uncover, unveil; Kataxadtntw (kataka- 
lypt6), cover up, veil; xaAvuua (kalymma), veil, covering. 

CL & OT kalypto, to conceal, cover (attested from Homer in classical Gk., but rare 
in Attic prose), is found in later Gk. in both lit. and fig. senses. In the LXX it 
stands for the Heb. kissah (piel), and is used of the cloud which covered Sinai and 
of the darkness which covers the earth (Exod. 24:15; Isa. 60:2). In Ps. 32:5 the 
word is used of concealing; in Ps. 85:2 of God’s covering of sin in forgiveness. The 
word is frequent in Pss. (e.g. 31:5; 43:15; 84:2) and Ezek. (e.g. 7:18; 16:8; 24:7f.). 
anakalypto, used for Heb. galadh, to disclose, uncover, reveal, is related in 
meaning to apokalypto (— Revelation). It is attested in cl. Gk. from the 5th cent. 
B.C. In the LXX it is used in Job 12:22 of the uncovering of hidden depths shrouded 
in darkness; in 33:16 of the uncovering of the mind (nous) of men. In Isa. 47:3 
Babylon, addressed figuratively as a virgin, is threatened with the uncovering of 
her nakedness (aischyné) as a divine punishment, while in Jer. 13:22 Judah is 
similarly threatened with the lifting of her skirts (a symbol of humiliation). 
katakalypto, to hide, cover up, attested in cl. Gk. from Homer, is found in 
Exod. 26:34 and Num. 4:5 of the covering of the ark with a curtain. In Isa. 6:2 
the seraphim cover their faces and their feet with their wings. In the mid. meaning, 
to cover oneself, Tamar is said in Gen. 38:15 to have veiled her face, i.e. like a 
prostitute. The rare verbal adj. akatakalyptos, unveiled (Lev. 13:45), occurs in the 
NT only in 1 Cor. 11:5, 13 (~ Head). 
kalymma, veil, covering, attested in cl. Gk. from Homer, is used in Exod. 
34:34-35 of the veil worn by Moses to cover his face. In Num. 4:6, 8, 12 etc. the 
word (along with katakalymma) is used of the cloths with which the holy objects 
like the ark of the covenant, the altar, the altar vessels etc. were kept from being 
touched or seen. To look at them or touch them could mean death (Num. 4:15, 20). 

NT 1. The words of this group are relatively rare in the NT and are found only in 

Matt., Lk., | and 2 Cor. | Pet and Jas. (a) In the lit. sense kalypto is found at 
Matt. 8:24 (the ship is covered by the waves); Lk. 8:16 (no one covers a lamp 
with a vessel); and Lk. 23:30 (people will say to the hills, ““Cover us!’’). 

(b) A fig. use is found in the general statement, ““There is nothing covered that 
will not be revealed” (Matt. 10:26 = Lk. 12:2). Lk.’s version has here the intensi- 
fied form synkekalymmenon, while the parallel tradition in Mk. 4:22 = Lk. 8:17 
has — krypton. The statement allows of various applications; but in the context 
it refers here to the commission given by Jesus to his — disciples. The word told 
to them in secret is to be proclaimed publicly from the rooftops (Matt. 10:27). 

2. In 1 Cor. 11:1-6 Paul deals with the question of women’s veils. This is the 
only place in the NT where the mid. katakalyptesthai to veil oneself (twice, in 
vv. 6-7), and the adj. akatakalyptos, unveiled (vv. 5, 13), are found. Paul demands 
that a — woman wear a veil when praying or prophesying in church (vv. 4-5; cf. 
the women “who prophesied” in Acts 21:9). This requirement is in keeping with the 
strict Jewish and Oriental sense of what is fitting, according to which it would be 
unthinkable for a woman to appear in public without a veil (v. 13). The Gk. custom 
was probably not uniform, but the church in the international city of Corinth was 
scarcely a purely Greek church. Paul wishes this custom to be observed not only 



in Corinth but also in the other churches (v. 16). Because, however, of the variety 
of circumstances, this was not by any means the case (A. Oepke, TDNT III 563). 
The puzzling thing is the ground for this ruling given in v. 10 (over and above the 
reference in v. 13 to what is fitting): the women are to have an “‘authority”’ on their 
head. The authority (exousia) refers to the head-covering, the veil (Old Latin 
texts translate it velamen); but the odd expression exousia is not adequately 
explained (cf. W. Foerster, exousia, TDNT II 570 f.). Just as difficult are the words 
‘“‘because of the angels’. Are the angels the guardians of the natural order (vv. 
8, 9; cf. Gen. 2:21 ff.)? Or is the veil a protection against fallen angels who might 
wish to lead the women astray? Attempts have been made to find a background 
for such an interpretation in Gen. 6:1 ff., where it is recorded that the “‘sons of 
God’’ (the reference is to angelic powers) took to wife the daughters of men. Jewish 
literature of the NT period expanded this story further (Eth.Enoch 6; Syr.Bar. 56; 
Test.Reub. 5). The brevity of Paul’s reference makes it difficult to be certain of the 
correct interpretation. (For further discussion of this whole passage — Head, NT 

3. (a) The word kalymma, covering, is found 4 times in the NT, all in 2 Cor. 
3:13-16. Here Paul makes reference to Exod. 34:33-—35, where it is recorded that 
Moses put a veil over his face, because the Israelites feared the divine radiance which 
came from it (Exod. 34:30; cf. Num. 4:15, 20). Paul disregards the fear motive. 
He interprets the passage to mean that Moses put on the veil in order that the 
Israelites might not see the end of the temporary radiance. The passing — glory 
(doxa) of the old covenant is contrasted with the eternal glory of the new (v. 11). 
This veil remains unlifted, we read in vv. 14 f., up to the present day when the “‘old 
covenant” is read. It lies over the minds of the Jews who cannot grasp the true 
meaning of the old covenant as a pointer to Christ. Just as Moses removed the 
veil when he went in to God (Exod. 34:34), so will the veil be removed from Israel 
when they are converted to the Lord, i.e. when they allow themselves to be ruled by 
the — Spirit (v. 16; cf. v. 17, ho de kyrios to pneuma estin, the Lord is the Spirit). 
(On this whole passage see P. E. Hughes, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the 
Corinthians, 1962, 107-34; W. C. van Unnik, “With Unveiled Face’, NovT 6, 
1963, 153ff.) 

(b) The same context contains in vv. 14 and 18 the only NT instances of the vb. 
anakalypto. There is no question as to the meaning to unveil, uncover. But the 
exegesis of v. 14, which says that the veil remains over the reading of the ‘‘old 
covenant’’, is difficult. The AV translates, “until this day remaineth the same vail 
untaken away’’; the RSV, “it remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it 
taken away” (reading a comma after menei, “‘remains’’). P. Bachmann interprets the 
words mé anakalyptomenon as an acc. absolute and translates: “without it being 
revealed that (hoti) it (i.e. the “‘old covenant”’ as a way of salvation) has been done 
away in Christ” (Der Zweite Brief des Paulus an die Korinther, 1922, 168). In any 
case the thought which Paul wishes to convey is that for Christians the veils have 
been removed which would prevent them from seeing ‘‘the light of the gospel of 
the glory of Christ’ (4:4, 6). This is clear from v.18, where he goes on to give 
expression to the assurance of Christian faith: “We all, with unveiled [anakekalym- 
meno] face, beholding the glory of the Lord” (cf. H. D. Wendland, Die Briefe an 
die Korinther, NT D 7, 1963, 157 ff.). The effect of this beholding is that the beholders 



are changed by the Lord, who is the Spirit (v. 17), into the likeness of the one whom 
they behold (— See). 

In contradiction to the statement of 2 Cor. 3:18 stands the verdict which, 
according to 2 Cor. 4:3, opponents pass upon the Pauline gospel: the Pauline 
gospel is “‘veiled”’ (kekalymmenon). In other words, it is obscure or contradictory. 
Paul throws back the criticism in his opponents’ teeth by saying that it is veiled for 
those who are perishing, for those who are unable to see the light of the gospel, 
because they have been blinded by Satan (2 Cor. 4:4). This judgment agrees with 
the remarks about the unbelieving Jews which have been made in 2 Cor. 3:13. 

4. In 1 Pet. 4:8 the readers are exhorted to love on the ground that love covers 
(kalyptei) a multitude of — sins. In Jas. 5:20 the same grounds are given in an 
exhortation to bring back a sinner from the error of his way (cf. also 1 Clem. 49:5; 
2 Clem. 16:4). Probably what we have here is a catch-phrase which had its origin 
in Prov. 10:12 (Heb. text). The epistles of Clement interpret it in the sense of 
‘justification by works’’: love wins for him who practises it the forgiveness of his 
sins. Another interpretation is possible, and more in keeping with the language 
used. —> Love covers up, by means of the — forgiveness which it instils, a multitude 

of sins in others. W. Mundle 
| Kpinto ——_—| kK pvntw (krypto), hide, conceal; dzox pUmtw (apokrypto), 
hes hide; Kpuntoc (kryptos), hidden, secret; dnxoKpvdoc 

(apokryphos), hidden; xpudaioc (kryphaios), and k pvdioc (kryphios), hidden. 

CL 1. krypto, to hide, conceal, fig. to keep secret, is attested in cl. Gk. from Homer. 

From the Hel. aorist ekrybén (common in the LXX, e.g. Gen. 3:8) is derived 
the vb. krybé, which has the same meaning (found in the NT only in the form 
periekryben, she kept herself hidden [Lk. 1:24]). The derivative apokrypto (Homer) 
has the same meaning. It is not possible to draw an absolute distinction between its 
range of meaning and that of the similar vb. > kalypto, to hide. The same may 
be said of the adjectives kryptos and apokryphos, hidden (Homer and 5th cent. 
B.C. respectively). The group also includes the adv. kryphé, secretly (in the NT at 
Eph. 5:12 only), and the adj. kryphaios, hidden, which is found only in biblical 
usage (Jer. 23:24; Lam. 3:10; in the NT only at Matt. 6:18, par. to en to krypto, 
in secret, vv. 4, 6). The noun krypté, vault, cellar, hidden corner (attested from 3rd 
cent. B.c.), is found in the NT only at Lk. 11:33. 

2. The hiddenness of the deity is not emphasized greatly in Gk. and Hel. religion. 
Although the Hymn to Isis from Andros (lst cent. B.c.) speaks of the secret 
(apokrypha) symbols of Hermes, and Iamblichus (3rd cent A.D.) mentions ta 
krypta, the hidden things, of the goddess Isis (cf. Arndt, 93, 455; A. Oepke, kArypto, 
TDNT Ill 961-6), the Hel. mystery religions are no exception. The most one can 
say is that the word apokryphos, hidden, plays a great part in books of magic and 
astrological texts. The biblical doctrine of God, with its awareness of his transcend- 
dence and its emphasis on the unapproachability and hiddenness of God, is largely 
foreign to Gk. and Hel. religion. 

oT 1. In the LXX krypto is found in the lit. sense of to hide (e.g. Gen. 3:8, 10) as 
well as in the fig. sense of to keep secret (e.g. Gen. 18:17; 1 Sam. 3:17, 18). It 
represents various Heb. roots with the same basic meaning, e.g. haba’, to hide, 



conceal (Gen. 3:8, 10; | Sam. 14:11), kAd (piel), to hide, conceal (1 Sam. 3:17; cf. 
A. Oepke, TDNT III 967). apokrypto, to hide, usually has the fig. meaning (Isa. 
40:27; Wis. 6:22). The adj. kryptos is used in both the lit. and the fig. senses (2 
Macc. 1:16; Deut. 29:29). apokryphos, hidden, is used in Isa. 45:3, 1 Macc. 1:23 
and Dan. 11:43 of secret treasures. The expression en apokrypho, in secret, is also 
found (e.g. Deut. 27:15; Ps. 10:8). | 

2. (a) The hiddenness and unapproachability of God is depicted impressively in 
the OT in the story of the call of > Moses. Moses is not allowed to approach the 
God who has revealed himself to him in the burning bush, but turns his face away 
(LXX apestrepsen); he is afraid of God’s face (Exod. 3:6; — God, oT 2). Similarly 
the people do not dare to approach God at Sinai; Moses alone dares to go forward 
into the darkness (Exod. 20:21). 

The same basic concept is found in later writings. In the secret place of thunder 
God hears his people’s cry of distress (Ps. 81:7). At the consecration of the temple 
Solomon declared that God wishes to dwell in darkness (1 Ki. 8:12). This also 
applies in the fig. sense to God’s hidden guidance: the painful misfortunes of Israel 
are regarded as judgments of God in which his comfort remains hidden (Hos. 
13:14). The God of Israel is a hidden God, and yet he remains the saviour. He 
hides his face in wrath, but he returns to his people with everlasting — grace (Isa. 
45:15; 54:8). Though Israel’s way may be hidden from God, it is not cut off from 
the comfort of the Lord who gives power and strength to the weary (Isa. 40:27, 29). 

(b) God hides himself from men, but man cannot hide from God. God is the 
Lord who fills heaven and earth (Jer. 23:24). Everywhere man is surrounded by 
God’s presence; God’s eye sees even in the darkness, nothing is hid from Him 
(Ps. 139:7-12, 15; Sir. 39:19). To flee from God, as the case of Jonah shows (Jon. 
1:3), is therefore a hopeless quest. Above all, human sin is not hidden from God 
(Jer. 16:17). There is no gloom or darkness where evildoers can hide themselves 
(Job 34:22; Sir. 17:15, 20). Sinful man is therefore threatened by God on every 
side. Before this terrible God he must creep into the earth’s recesses (Isa. 2:10). To 
him God is like a bear lying in wait or a lion in hiding (Lam. 3:10). And so Job 
complains that God hides his face from him like an enemy (Job 13:24). Similarly 
the psalmists complain that God hides his face from them and is far from them 
(Pss. 10:1; 44:24); but man’s sin is not hidden from God (Ps. 69:5). The awareness 
of personal guilt and distance from God finds strong expression in the Pss. All the 
more urgent, therefore, is the plea made to God by the righteous: “Hide not thy 
ear from my cry” (Lam. 3:56). Finally, the sighing of the righteous cannot remain 
hidden from God (Ps. 38:9). He therefore must stand before God with his sin and 
confess it; if he does not hide it, he can obtain God’s forgiveness (Ps. 32:5). He 
asks this forgiveness also for hidden faults (Ps. 19:12). The psalmists know of the 
gracious God in whose goodness they may find refuge (Ps. 27:5; 31:19-20). One 
of the effects of this attitude of faith and trust is the desire to hide God’s command- 
ments in one’s heart, i.e. to be their guardian (Ps. 119:11, 19). 

(c) Thus in the OT expression is given in a variety of ways to the tension between 
the hiddenness of God and his — revelation. As the hidden God, he reveals what 
is hidden, the hidden things which concern the future (Dan. 2:22; Sir. 42:19; 48:25). 
This opens up the way which leads to Jewish apocalyptic which has its beginning 
in the book of Daniel. God is revealed also in his judgments, as the righteous —~ 



judge who brings to light what is hidden (Eccl. 12:14; 2 Macc. 12:41). Thus he 
reveals to Abraham the coming judgment on Sodom. Here it is hinted, but not 
explicitly said, that he is the gracious God whose wrath does not continue for ever 
(Gen. 18:23-33). 

3. In Judaism of the NT period, the apocalyptic literature which continues the 
tradition of the book of Daniel concerns itself a great deal with the hidden things, 
especially in so far as they have to do with the future. In the Book of Enoch the 
‘Son of Man” (— Son, art. hyios tou anthrépou), the “chosen one’’, will reveal all 
the treasures of what is hidden, and all secrets of wisdom will proceed from the 
thoughts of his mouth (Eth.Enoch 46:3; 51:3). The Qumran texts speak of a 
secret knowledge of the will of God which remains hidden to outsiders and is 
attainable only by the sect-community by way of the law and the prophets (1QS 
4:6; 9:17; 11:6; 1QH 5:25; 8:10 f.). Even in Rab. Judaism the awareness of the 
hiddenness of God and his mysteries does, not totally disappear (SB I 578 f., 659 f.), 
but it is balanced by the conviction of the pious Jew that the full and valid — reve- 
lation of God has been given him in the — law. The Jew, as characterized by 
Paul, possesses in the law “the embodiment of knowledge and truth’ (Rom. 
2:20); this fits him to be a guide to the blind and a light to those who are in darkness 
(cf. Rom. 2:17—20). 

NT |. In the NT krypté occurs 19 times, and apokrypto 4 times. In the parallel 

passages, Matt. 11:25 = Lk. 10:21, Matt. uses Arypto and Lk. apokrypto. Of 
the adjectives, kryptos occurs 17 times; apokryphos 3 times (Mk. 4:22;. Lk. 8:17; 
Col. 2:3); kryphaios twice (Matt. 6:18, v.l. en to krypto). The sayings in Matt. 
10:26 and Lk. 12:2 (8:17) are variations of the one in Mk. 4:22, ““There is nothing 
hidden that shall not be made manifest.’ The parallelism of the sayings indicates 
that no clear line of distinction can be drawn between the meanings of the words 
above mentioned, nor indeed between them and the related — kalypto (cf. Lk. 
23:30 with Rev. 6:16). The words are often used in their lit. sense: Matt. 13:44 
mentions the treasure hidden in a field, while in the parable of the talents the 
unfaithful servant hides his money in the earth (25:18, 25). Similarly the woman 
hides the leaven in the flour (Matt. 13:33 enekrypsen; cf. Lk. 13:21). In a reference 
to Exod. 2, Heb. 11:23 records the hiding of the child Moses after his birth. 

2. Of theological significance are the sayings which deal with the hiddenness of 
revelation and of the revelatory work of God. The — revelation which God gives 
through Jesus to babes remains hidden from the wise and prudent (Matt. 11:25 
par. Lk. 10:21). The hiddenness of revelation corresponds to the hiddenness of 
the —> kingdom of heaven. This is the message of the parables of the leaven and 
of the hidden treasure (Matt. 13:33, 44). Just as the kingdom is hidden, so must 
the disciples’ almsgiving, prayers and fasting, be done in secret; the Father who sees 
in secret will —- reward them. Jesus emphasized this in the face of a type of piety 
which sought to make a display of itself (Matt. 6:4, 6, 18). The passion predic- 
tions of Jesus indicate that for the disciples the divine plan remains for the present 
hidden; it is not revealed to them until after the resurrection (Lk. 18:34; cf. Mk. 
9:32; Lk. 9:45). Similarly it is Jerusalem that failed to recognize the salvation which 
Jesus desired to bring her: the things that made for her peace remained hidden 
from her eyes (Lk. 19:42). 



The saying in Matt. 10:26 gives rise in v. 27 to the commission to the disciples 
to spread the message: this is the way in which what has been hidden is to be made 
known. This is the interpretation that Matthew gives to the purpose of parables: 
they are intended to express what has been hidden since the foundation of the world 
(Matt. 13:35, quoting Ps. 78:2). The message is not to be spread by word alone, 
but also by the works of the disciples. The city set on a hill cannot be hid, and a 
light is not placed under a bushel or in a hidden corner, but on the lampstand, so 
that all may see it (Matt. 5:14 ff.; Lk. 11:33). 

The Gospel of John says that Joseph of Arimathea was a secret (kekrymmenos) 
disciple (19:38) for fear of the Jews. In contrast to this, Jesus confessed at his trial 
before the high priest: “‘I have said nothing secretly” (Jn. 18:20). His task has been 
to manifest the Father’s — name before men (Jn. 17:6). In apparent contradiction 
to this attitude, Jn. 7:8-10 records that Jesus did not go up to Jerusalem, although 
his brothers who did not believe in him urged him to do so. It was at the time of the 
Feast of Tabernacles (7:2 ff.). He did not go to this festival, because his time was 
not yet fulfilled. He went, but not until later and then secretly (vv. 8, 10). According 
to Jn. 8:59 he hid from the Jews and left the temple when they tried to stone him. 
When the Jews decided to put him to death, he no longer went about openly among 
them, but went into hiding (11:54, apél/then, he went away). The reason for this is 
given in Jn. 10:17, 18. Men cannot and must not be allowed to take his life from 
him at their volition; Jesus gave it up on his own resolve, when his hour had come, 
(Jn. 7:8; 13:1; 17:1). His action was determined by the relationship of love with 
his heavenly Father with whom he is one (Jn. 10:17, 30). The hiddenness of Jesus 
serves to expose his lack of dependence upon man, and his majesty and union with 
God. It does not mean that the revelation of Christ is intended to remain hidden to 
all, for Jesus is the — light of the world (Jn. 8:12). But it is given only to the disciples 
(Jn. 17); unbelievers are subject to the judgment of total blindness (9:39). 

3. (a) Paul declares that the apostolic message is the hidden wisdom of God 
which God has ordained from all eternity for our glory (1 Cor. 2:7, apokekrym- 
menen). It has its origin in divine — revelation (Rom. 16:25; 1 Cor. 2:10; Gal. 
1:12). Its content is Christ whom God has made — wisdom for us (1 Cor. 1:30); the 
Spirit-inspired message brings us knowledge of God (1 Cor. 2:10 f.). 

(b) Ephesians and Colossians carry these ideas still further. The message is the 
secret hidden since the beginning of the world to former generations, but now 
revealed to the saints (Col. 1:25 ff.), and the holy apostles and prophets (Eph. 
3:5 ff.). It proclaims to us the Christ present in Christians and his unsearchable 
riches (Col. 1:27; Eph. 3:8). In this Christ are hidden all the treasures of wisdom; 
thus OT language about hidden treasures (see above OT 1) is interpreted as refer- 
ring to Christ (Col. 2:3). Not only, however, does Christ bestow knowledge; he is 
also the hidden life of the Christian. Christians are buried with him in — baptism, 
and raised by faith to a new life. This life is hid with Christ in God (Col. 2:12; 3:3). 
Therefore they can take no part in the “hidden things of shame” (2 Cor. 4:2), in 
the works of darkness which take place in secret and yet cannot remain hidden 
(Eph. 5:12; cf. 1 Tim. 5:25). 

(c) In 1 Peter Christian women are called to a life with Christ: their holiness of 
life is to be evident from the fact that they do not adorn themselves with costly 
outward finery, but that their adornment is the “‘hidden person of the heart with the 



imperishable jewel of a gentle and quiet spirit” (1 Pet. 3:4). The mark of this 
hidden person who conducts his or her life with Christ is a life of hope, submission 
and fear of God (vv. 2, 5, 6). 

4. (a) Paul describes the believing Christian in Rom. 2:29 as a “Jew inwardly 
[en t6 krypto].”’ Through the — Spirit who has been given to Christians in faith 
and guarantees their status as children of God (Rom. 8:15 ff.; Gal. 4:6), they have 
received a circumcision of the — heart. This circumcision “‘made without hands”’ 
(Col. 2:11 f.) means that in — baptism they share in Christ’s burial and resurrec- 
tion (cf. Rom. 6:3 ff.). Thus they become members of the true people of God. ‘‘For 
we are the true circumcision, who worship God in spirit, and glory in Christ Jesus, 
and put no confidence in the flesh’’, Paul writes to the Philippians (Phil. 3:3). The 
Jew who is one outwardly (en to phanerd, Rom. 2:28) only relies on the circumci- 
sion of the flesh. This circumcision proves that he is a member of the Jewish people, 
—> Israel ‘according to the flesh” (1 Cor. 10:18). In contrast to this is the “Israel 
of God’”’ (Gal. 6:16), the church of Christ, to which the Christian may belong as a 
member of the true people of God, as ‘“‘a Jew inwardly’’, even without belonging 
outwardly to the Jewish people. 

(b) Rev. 2:17 speaks of the ‘“‘hidden manna’’, the gift of the heavenly world. 
Manna was the secret food provided by God which Israel received from heaven 
on her journey through the wilderness (Exod. 16:4; Bread, art. manna). In 
Jewish expectation (Syr.Bar. 29:8) it was to be given to Israel anew at the end of 
the ages. This gift will be received by “Shim who conquers”, who retains through all 
trials his loyalty to God. Ultimately this gift is Christ himself: he is the — bread 
of God which comes down from heaven (Jn. 6:33 ff.). 

(c) From all this it is clear that language about the hiddenness of God and of 
divine things is connected with the NT’s forward look into the future. God is the 
judge who will bring into judgment the secrets of men (Rom. 2:16), and will bring 
to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the purposes of the heart (1 Cor. 
4:5), just as the Spirit of God already at work in Christians discloses the secrets 
of the heart (1 Cor. 14:25). 

(d) Revelation takes up OT prophecies (Isa. 2:10 f.; Jer. 4:29; Hos. 10:8) and 
describes how on the day of judgment the kings and great men of the earth will 
have to hide in caves and clefts of the rocks: they will cry out to the mountains and 
rocks, ‘‘Fall on us and hide us from the face of God and from the wrath of the 
Lamb”’ (Rev. 6:15; cf. Lk. 23:30). 

5. The idea of judgment is only one side of NT expectation concerning the future. 
First and foremost the NT looks forward to the coming Lord: when Christ, the 
hidden life of Christians, shall appear, then they will appear with him in glory 
(Col. 3:3 f.). Then that knowledge which is here enjoyed only in part and which 
cannot lift the veil of God’s hiddenness will no longer be obscure. It will no longer 
be a matter of seeing “in a mirror dimly” (1 Cor. 13:12), but will be turned into 
sight, face to face. To see the — face of God is here no longer a ground for fear, 
but the fulfilment of the Christian’s joyful hope. 

6. (a) The word ‘“‘apocryphal”’ has passed into common usage because of the so- 
called apocryphal literature (— Glossary of Technical Terms). This consists of 
secret, hidden writings, which were not read out in church. The way was paved for 
the appearance of this literature by the fact that in the NT period the authority 



of — Scripture, or the Scriptures, was already established, while the question of 
which writings belonged to the authoritative, ‘““canonical’’ Scriptures was not yet 
fully resolved. In 1 Cor. 2:9, for instance, Paul cites a passage which is not to be 
found in our biblical texts, though it bears some resemblance to Isa. 64:4 (cf. also 
65:17). According to some of the early Fathers (Origen on Matt. 27:4; Ambro- 
siaster on | Cor. 2:9; and Jerome on Isa. 64:4), it was in the Apocalypse of Elijah 
which has not come down to us except in a fragment which does not contain the 
words. It was frequently quoted especially by gnostic writers and was ascribed to 
Jesus by Act.Pet. 39 and Gos.Thom. 17. In Jude 14 the prophecy of Enoch is 
mentioned, and a passage is cited from the apocryphal Apocalypse of Enoch 
(Eth.Enoch 1:9). The mention of Jannes and Jambres, the magicians who opposed 
Moses (2 Tim. 3:8) likewise presupposes the use of an apocryphal tradition (TDNT 
III 990). In the canonical tradition their names are not mentioned (cf. Exod. 7:10ff.). 
Later, from Jerome onwards (c. 380 A.D.), the title ““Apocrypha’”’ was limited to 
those books included in the LXX and the Latin Vulgate which was based on it 
which do not appear in the Heb. canon of the OT. The designation of these books 
as apocryphal did not however settle finally the question of their canonicity. At the 
Council of Trent (Session IV, 1546) the Roman Catholic Church pronounced 
them canonical (cf. H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, 19573", §§ 783 f.). 
Luther declared them to be “‘good and useful to read’’, and with some reservation 
included them in his translation of the Bible. The Church of England recognized 
that the Church reads them “for example and instruction of manners; but yet doth 
it not apply them to establish any doctrine”’ (Article VJ). In the Reformed Churches 
of the Calvinistic tradition they were generally rejected; but the attitudes of the 
various churches were not uniform. (See further The Cambridge History of the 
Bible, I-III, 1963-70 [see indexes]; B. M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha 
19698; R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 
I-II, [1913] 1963.) 

It is important to note the distinction between the apocryphal literature and 
apocalyptic writings, the subject of which is revelations about the events of the 
last days (— Glossary of Technical Terms, art. Apocalyptic; —~ Revelation). 

(b) In addition to the OT Apocrypha there is a body of NT Apocrypha, con- 
sisting of those writings which are related to the NT either by literary form or by 
date of origin. These include Apocryphal gospels and books of Acts, like the Gospel 
according to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the Egyptians, the Gospel 
of Thomas, the Acts of Peter, Paul, John and Thomas, spurious Epistles like that 
of Paul to the Laodiceans, books of revelation like the Apocalypse of Peter. (For 
critical edition see E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament 
Apocrypha, I-II, 1963-65.) Recent discoveries at Nag Hammadi in Upper Egypt 
in 1946 have enriched our knowledge of this literature. These writings which arose 
particularly in gnostic circles and which are fictional and wildly imaginative in 
content, were sometimes rejected from the outset by the church, and sometimes 
after a period of vacillation. (For texts see R. M. Grant, Gnosticism: An Anthology, 
1961; and W. Foerster, Gnosis: A Selection of Gnostic Texts, I, 1972; II, 1974.) 
To the NT Apocrypha are sometimes (but mistakenly) reckoned the Apostolic 
Fathers (1 and 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache and other writings 
[cf. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, I-V, 1889-90, one-volume ed., 1891 



revised; C. C. Richardson, ed., Early Christian Fathers, 1953]). These books are 
close to the NT in time, and to some extent in content. The fact that some of them 
are to be found in ancient MSS of the Bible indicates that for a time there was 
uncertainty as to whether they belonged to the NT. W. Mundle 
—> Knowledge, — Revelation 

(a). B. Altaner, Patrology, 1960, 47-96; S. Barabas, ‘“‘Apocrypha, Modern’, ZPEB I 213 ff.; 
R. Bultmann, “Adam, where art Thou ?’’, in Essays Philosophical and Theological, 1955, 119-32; 
and ‘“‘Concerning the Hidden and Revealed God”, in Existence and Faith, 1964, 25-38: The 
Cambridge History of the Bible, I, ed. P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, 1970; II, ed. G. W. H. 
Lampe, 1969; III, ed. S. L. Greenslade, 1963; R. H. Charles, Religious Developments between the 
Old and New Testaments, 1914; R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old 
Testament, I—II, (1913) 1963; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, 1965, 560-668; 
M.S. Enslin, “‘Apocrypha, NT”, /DBI 166-69; C. T. Fritsch, “‘Apocrypha’’, DBI 161-66; E. J. 
Goodspeed, Modern Apocrypha, 1956; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, 1970; 
and “‘Apocrypha’’, ZPEB I 205-10; E. Hennecke and W. Schneemelcher, eds., New Testament 
Apocrypha, I-III, 1963-65; M. R. James, The Apocryphal New Testament, 1924 and reprints; 
R. McL. Wilson, ‘“‘Apocryphal New Testament”, ZPEB J 210-13; B. M. Metzger, An Introduction 
to the Apocrypha, 1969°; A. Oepke, kalypto, TDNT III 556-92; A. Oepke and R. Meyer, krypto, — 
TDNT III] 957-1000; R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the 
Apocrypha, 1957; D.S. Russell, The Method and Message of Jewish Apocalyptic 200 B.c.—-A.D. 100, 
1964; D. M. Scholer, Nag Hammadi Bibliography, 1949, 1969, 1971; C. C. Torrey, The Apocryphal 
Literature, 1945; W. C. van Unnik, ‘‘With Unveiled Face’’, NovT 6, 1963, 153 ff. 

(b). A. BOhlig and P. Labib, Koptisch-gnostische Apokalypsen aus Kodex V von Nag Hammadi, 
1963; J. Godttsberger, ““Die Hiille des Mose nach Ex. 34 und 2 Kor. 3”, BZ 16, 1924, 1 ff.; SB III 
427 ff. 

For works on gnosticism — bibliography under Knowledge. 

Hinder, Prevent, Forbid 

Hindrances may take a variety of forms. They may be solid and physical (like 
rocks) or psychological (like lack of insight). We may meet them suddenly all at 
once or as a continuing impediment. They may affect a particular plan or our whole 
being. The Gk. vbs. enkopto and kolyo correspond to this variety of meanings. 
enkopto denotes a temporary (originally military) obstacle. kolyo, on the other hand, 
generally signifies a human obstacle which frequently affects the whole person, and 
in the NT specifically the relationship of the individual to God. 

[eyxdnto éyKonta@ (enkopto), hinder, thwart; éyxomy (enkopé), 
? hindering, hindrance; éyxomyv dlddval tivi (enkopén 
didonai tini), hinder something. 

CL & OT The vb. enkopto, composed of en- (in) and kopto (to strike), originally 

meant to knock in or cut into. The meaning hinder arose out of its military use. 
During a retreat the road might be cut into (i.e. broken up), in order to delay the 
pursuing enemy. The noun enkopé therefore denoted originally merely a temporary 
hindrance (cf. proskomma, — Offence), and only very late (Ist cent. B.C.) a per- 
manent impediment. The vb. is followed by the dat. (in the NT by the acc., by 
analogy with kdlyo). A following infin. is frequently in the gen. (to be translated 
in the NT almost as a consecutive by “‘so that”’; Funk § 400, 4; cf. Rom. 15:22). 
The following infin. is frequently accompanied by mé or mé ou, according to 



whether the expression is used positively, negatively or interrogatively, a usage 
which seems to us pleonastic (Funk § 429; cf. Gal. 5:7). Neither vb. nor noun 
occurs in the LXX. The vbs. of hindering in the OT do not have the special nuances 
of enkopto. 

NT The noun occurs once, and the vb. 5 times (3 times in Paul and once each in 

Acts and |] Pet.). In the NT these words indicate an occurrence which hinders 
progress in the realm of — faith or in the Christian life, bringing it to a standstill, 
if not permanently at least for the moment. Such a hindrance is always of a kind 
that can be overcome. 

The — proclamation of the — gospel could thus have been hindered, if Paul had 
allowed himself to receive money from the churches which came into being as the 
result of his preaching (1 Cor. 9:12). This hindrance was not of permanent conse- 
quence, but in particular cases was nontheless considerable. Therefore, Paul waived 
his rights (exousia) which in themselves could not be contested. Again, Paul’s 
mission in Rome was only delayed by the fact that he had to complete projects 
which he had begun in other places (Rom. 15:22). Paul wanted to go to Thessa- 
lonica, but the visit was repeatedly hindered by — Satan (1 Thess. 2:18). It is no 
longer possible to determine what hindrances Paul classified as Satan’s work. It 
might have been an illness (2 Cor. 12:7; cf. on this point Phil. 2:25-30) or the 
machinations of the Jews (1 Thess. 2:15 f.). 

In Gal. 5:7 the Christian life is compared to a race, the running of which is 
hindered by false teachers. The true way of faith has been endangered by sectarian, 
legalistic, gnostically inclined Jewish Christians (so W. Schmithals and K. Wegen- 
ast; see bibliography), because they have perverted the gospel (1:7) and threaten 
to destroy the unity of the church (4:17). 

Insufficient — knowledge (art. gindskd; cf. B. Reicke, see bibliography) can also 
act as a hindrance to men’s prayers (1 Pet. 3:7). The trouble here is that, under the 
influence of prevailing pagan custom, men have tended to despise their wives 
instead of recognizing them as partners. The passage has nothing to do with the 
common prayers of married couples, nor with marriage as a hindrance to prayer. 
Similar concepts of hindering occur in 1 Cor. 13:1 and 11:20—29 (where the vb. is 
not used). In the former it is a lack of love which hinders effective preaching, and 
in the latter a selfish lack of brotherly consideration which prevents the proper 
celebration of the — Lord’s Supper. 

The Aram. and Syriac versions and also the misleading ref. to Job 19:2 and 
Isa. 43:23 (which have enkopon and not enkopén poiein) have resulted in the erro- 
neous translation of enkopto as “‘weary” in Acts 24:4 (KJV, Moffatt). However, 
the basic meaning of enkoptd makes good sense: “In order not to hinder you any 
further [i.e. by this long speech from carrying out of your administrative duties]”’ 
(cf. F. F. Bruce, The Acts of the Apostles, 1952, 421; E. Haenchen, The Acts of the 
Apostles, 1971, 653). Burden, delay or detain are also possible translations (G. 
Stahlin, 7DNT III 855; Arndt, 215). C. H. Peisker 

; Kw@Avw@ (kodlyd), hamper, hinder, prevent, restrain, 
| Kova | forbid. 



cL The vb. kdlyo is attested from Pindar on. Although its etymology is obscure 

(possibly from kolos, stunted), it originally meant to cut short, and then to 
hinder, etc. It 1s used with a separative gen.: kdlyo tina tinos, hinder someone in 
something (cf. Acts 27:43). In the NT the gen. is frequently replaced by apo (Funk 
§180, 1; cf. Lk. 6:29). As in the case of enkopto, a following infin. is often in the 
gen., in the NT always without mé (Funk § 429). There are familiar idioms such as 
ti kolyei, why not? and ouden kolyei, proceed by all means (so far as I am concerned). 

oT The vb. occurs approximately 33 times in the LXX. In 20 of these instances 
there is no Heb. equivalent, as the passages occur in the Apocrypha. It also 
occurs in a few Jewish Pseudepigrapha (Gr.Enoch, Aristeas, Test.XII) and in 
Philo and Josephus. The LXX employs kdlyé most frequently to translate Heb. 
kala (8 times); it stands also for mana‘ (3 times), and once each for Sib (hiph.) and 
‘azar. The basic meaning is to hinder (cf. Ezek. 31:15; Job 12:15). It is used mostly 
in the sense of to restrain, withold. The objects of this action can be people (Gen. 
23:6; Num. 11:28; Ps. 119:101) and things (wind, water, Eccl. 8:8; Ezek. 31:15; 
Job 12:15). The subject may be God (1 Sam. 25:26; Ezek. 31:15) or men (Moses, 
Num. 11:28; the writer, Pss. 40:10; 119:101). 
kolyo can denote holding back in secular contexts, where a man is the subject and 
things are prevented, refused, denied or withheld (Gen. 23:6; Test. Sim. 2:12). 
But it can be used in a religious sense, both with regard to its cause and effect. In 
this case it is God, one of his servants or the righteous man who does the witholding. 
Here kdlyo refers especially to the relationship of the people or of an individual to 

NT koélyo occurs 23 times in the NT of which 12 are in Lk. and Acts. Luke’s use 

of the word is significant. Besides a purely secular use in connection with tax 
evasion (Lk. 23:2), he has also a theological use. In Acts 16:6 Paul is prevented by 
the Holy Spirit from preaching the gospel in the Roman province of Asia. By this 
comment Luke intends to demonstrate God’s leading along the road towards 
Europe. Here kélyo is used as a synonym for enkopto. 

1. (a) From the point of view of the object, the hindering relates mostly to 
people: soldiers are prevented from killing Paul (Acts 27:43); children are pre- 
vented from coming to Jesus (Mk. 10:14 par. Matt. 19:14, Lk. 18:16); Paul was 
prevented from going to Rome (Rom. 1:13) and from continuing his mission (1 
Thess. 2:16). 1 Cor. 14:39 seems to be an exception, as it refers to speaking in 
tongues. Even so, people are directly involved. 

(b) Such hindrances can stem directly from a person: a Roman centurion (Acts 
— 24:23; 27:43); disciples or a baptizing church (Mk. 10:14 par.); circumstances 
(Rom. 1:13); or death (Heb. 7:23). 

(c) The answer to the question, ““What is hindered ?”’ indicates clearly the domin- 
ant theological use of the vb. Most frequently it is the preaching of the gospel that is 
hindered (Acts 16:6; Rom. 1:13; 1 Thess. 2:16; in the widest sense, 1 Cor. 14:39). 
Since service is also a form of proclamation, Lk. 6:29 (cf. Mk. 14:39; Matt. 26:42) 
belongs to this context. Comparison of Lk. 11:52 with Matt. 23:13 reveals how the 
two evangelists interpreted Jesus’ condemnation of the experts in the law: “But 
woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of 



heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would 
enter to go in” (Matt.); ““Woe to you lawyers! for you have taken away the key of 
knowledge; you did not enter yourselves, and you hindered those who were enter- 
ing” (Lk.). Writing for Gentile readers, Lk. omits the words “‘kingdom of heaven’, 
and interprets the denunciation in terms of witholding — knowledge. 

2. It is striking that both Paul (e.g. Rom. 1:13) and Luke (cf. Acts 16:6) see the 
ultimate origin of hindrances affecting Christians not in the actions of the people 
concerned but in God himself (or the — Spirit of God, or Jesus). However, a 
disciple’s own decisions and actions (whether in his dealings with his fellow men, or 
more particularly in his marriage relationship) clearly affect whether his faith is 
able to grow and develop, or whether it is constricted and hindered (cf. 1 Cor. 9:4, 
7 ff.; 1 Pet. 3:7). The same applies to the church as a whole. 

This leads to the question of witholding — baptism. As early as the Ist cent., 
when enquiries were made whether there were any obstacles in the way of a 
candidate for baptism, kd/ydé became the technical term for the refusal of baptism 
(O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New Testament, 1950, 75), and Mk. 10:14 par. Matt. 
10:13 ff., Lk. 18:15 ff. were used in argument against scruples over infant baptism 
(Cullmann, op. cit., 76 ff.; cf. Tertullian, De baptismo, 18). This may be due to the 
use of kodlyé in connection with baptism in the NT (Acts 8:36; 10:47; 11:17) 
and in early Christian baptismal texts (Gos.Eb.; Epiph., Haer. 30, 13, 8; Pseudo- 
Clement, Homilies 13, 4, 1; 13, 11, 2). C. H. Peisker 

(a). K. Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants ?, 1963; O. Cullmann, Baptism in the New 
Testament, 1950; J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries, 1960; and The Origins of 
Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland, 1963; G. Stahlin, kopetos etc., TDNT Ul 

(b). J. Jeremias, “Mc. 10.13-16 Parr. und die Ubung der Kindertaufe in der Urkirche’, ZNW 40, 
1941, 243 ff.; B. Rehm, Die griechisch-christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten vier Jahrhunderte, 1953; 
B. Reicke, Die Gnosis der Manner nach | Petrus 3,7, BNZW 21, 1957?, 296 ff.; W. Schmithals, ‘‘Die 
Haretiker in Galatien”, ZNW 47, 1956, 25 ff.; K. Wegenast, Das Verstandnis der Tradition bei 
Paulus und in den Deuteropaulinen, WMANT 8, 1962, 36 ff. 

Holy, Consecrate, Sanctify, Saints, Devout 

The expressions “‘holy” and “‘the holy” denoted at the beginning of the history of 
religion power (mana), taboo, and then, generally the sphere of divine power which 
man felt to be superior and threatening. The opposite of the holy was the profane, 
the sphere of human life outside the realm of the holy. The roots of religion lie in 
the efforts to separate the holy by means of cultic and ritual processes from the 
desecration and contamination caused by the profane. The Greeks used three 
different word-groups to denote the holy. hieros, with its numerous derivatives, 
denotes the essentially holy, the taboo, the divine power, or what was consecrated 
to it, e.g. sanctuary, sacrifice, priest. In contrast, hagios — the most frequent word- 
group in the NT —contains an ethical element. The emphasis falls on duty to 
worship the holy. hosios also points in this direction. On the one hand, it indicates 
divine commandment and providence; on the other, human obligation and morality. 



= dyloc (hagios), holy, sacred; ayid¢@ (hagiazo), make holy, 
GYIOC | ae : 
consecrate, sanctify; ayiagudc (hagiasmos), holiness, 
consecration, sanctification; ayidtyc¢ (hagiotés), holiness; ayiwavvn (hagidsyne), 
holiness; aylagua (hagiasma), sanctuary; aylagty piov (hagiastérion), sanctuary. 

CL There is no certain etymology for hagios. It is related to hazomai (from hagiomai) 

which is not found in the LXX or the NT, meaning to stand in awe of the gods 
or one’s parents, e.g. Apollo (Homer, //. 1, 21), and also to respect, e.g. of Zeus 
who respects those who stand under the protection of Pallas (Aesch., Eumenides 
1002). Used metaphorically, it occurs in the expression: “‘it does not fill me with 
dread of death’ (Eur., Orestes 1116). Negatively, it means to be filled with holy 
anger (Eur., Frag. 348). Accordingly, the adj. hagios would suggest less the taboo 
than the holy which was worthy of worship. hagios is not found in Homer, Hesiod 
or the tragedians who use the related hagnos (—> Pure) in a sense which corresponds 
very closely with the OT gad6s. Its connection with hagios is uncertain and perhaps 
improbable (cf. TDNT I 88). 

hagios is found from Hdt. on, e.g. the shrine (hiron) of Aphrodite is holy (2, 41); 
an oath is also holy (Aristot., Mirabilia 834b 11). People, too, can be described as 
holy (Aristoph., Birds 522; despite TDNT I 88). Hellenism used the word as an 
epithet describing oriental gods (Isis, Serapis, Baal; TDNT I 89), whence it was 
also transferred to Gk. gods. 

Beside hagios we find hagizd, consecrate, from which by extension hagiazo is 
formed. The latter, with its derivatives hagiasma, sanctuary, holiness, hagiasmos, 
holiness, hagiastérion, sanctuary, occurs chiefly in the LXX. The late nouns hagiotés 
and hagidsyné, holiness (also chiefly in the LXX), are derived from hagios. hagios 
was not particularly frequent in Gk. apart from the LXX. It was doubtless used as 
the equivalent of Heb. gad6s, because it expressed, in contrast to — hieros, not 
the holy in and of itself, but the challenge to worship which issues from the holy. 

oT In the LXX only hagiazo, hagiasma, and hagios play any part. hagiasmos 
(without a clear Heb. equivalent), hagiastérion (4 times [3 times for Heb. 
migdas|), hagiotés (only 2 Macc. 15:2) and hagidsyné (5 times) are also found. 
The word-group serves predominantly to translate Heb. gadé6s and its derivatives. 
In addition there are the (rare) occurrences of nazir, Nazirite, to be considered. 
The decisive element in the OT concept of the holy, in contrast to the profane 
(hol; cf. hillél, defile), is not so much the awesome divine power. Rather, through 
certain places, objects or occasions men enter into relatively direct contact with the 
divine power which can be awesome, if men treat it ina profane way (1 Sam. 6:20). 
The basic idea is not that of separation (though this is favoured by some scholars, 
cf. N. H. Snaith, The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 1944, 24 ff.), but the 
positive thought of encounter which inevitably demands certain modes of response. 
Although Heb. worship was particularly concerned with this encounter, the sphere 
of the holy was wider than the cult. The holy is therefore a pre-ethical term. On 
the other hand, it is a concept which posits ethical values. This ethic is not the first 
stage of human morality, but the expression of the holiness of Yahweh in a world 
of both similar and different sacred practices. For example, sexual intercourse is 
in no way immoral. But compared with sacred practices, it is a profane act which 



therefore makes one impure for coming into contact with the holy (1 Sam. 21:4 ff. 
[MT 5 ff.]; Exod. 19:15). 

]. (a) The word group does not occur frequently in the oldest sources. Yahweh 
is once called “this holy God”’ by the Philistines, because they were exposed to 
great disaster when they did not show proper respect for the ark of the — covenant 
(1 Sam. 6:19 f.). Although the OT mentions many cultic centres, only twice are 
places described as holy (Gilgal-Jericho, Jos. 5:15) or as holy ground (Exod. 3:5, 
the call of Moses; — God, oT 2). 2 Ki. 4:9 takes us out of the sphere of the cultus. 
The Shunammitess recognized Elisha, the man of God, as holy, i.e. like Samson 
full of sacred power (Jdg. 13:7; 16:17). 

(b) The use of the vb. to make holy, or sanctify, is more uniform in the context of 
its setting than the noun and the adj. A man sanctified himself, when he had been 
temporarily excluded from the life of the community by uncleanness (2 Sam. 11:4), 
or when he came into contact with God (theophany, Exod. 19:10 ff.; holy war, 
1 Sam. 21:5 ff.; family sacrifice at which Yahweh was the highest-ranking relative, 
1 Sam. 16:5). One could also sanctify people (1 Sam. 7:1, to the priesthood) or 
things (Jos. 6:19, Jdg. 17:3 etc., silver; 1 Ki. 8:64, the temple forecourt) and thus 
place them at God’s disposal. It is important also to mention that the LXX trans- 
lates the expression ‘“‘a Nazirite to God” (Samson, Jdg. 13:7; 15:17) by “a holy 
one of God.” As Num. 6:1 ff. shows, the case of the Nazirite is a special form of 

(c) One can only surmise that the rise of the great royal sanctuaries (Jerusalem, 
Bethel) occasioned in turn an extension of the use of the word holy. Little is known 
of this process. 1 Sam. 21:4 mentions holy bread; Jer. 11:15 holy sacrificial flesh. 
Part of the piety of the Pss. probably belongs here. The Psalmist speaks of Yahweh’s 
holy — temple (Ps. 5:7 [MT 8] and often), of the holy hill (3:4 [MT 5]; 15:1), of 
holy Zion (2:6), of the holy court (29:2 LXX, RSV “‘array’’), and also of holy 
heaven (20:6 [MT 7]), or the holy height from which Yahweh hears (102:19 [MT 
20]), and correspondingly of his holy throne (47:8 [MT 9]). Yahweh is terrible and 
holy (99:3). None of the gods is holy as he is, for none casts down the exalted and 
raises the humble as he does (1 Sam. 2:2). 

2. Prophetic polemic was scarcely directed against objects and practices which 
are described as holy. This is possibly connected with the wider application of the 
term holy. This is illustrated by the thought expressed in Ps. 24:3 f.: ““Who shall 
stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not 
lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully.”’ This suggests that, 
from the outset, self-consecration in the cult and the holy were never purely ritualis- 
tic matters but were concerned with one’s way of life. 

(a) This is clearly the case in Amos. 2:7 and 4:2. Hos. 11:9 has perhaps a 
similar message. Yahweh, the Holy One in the midst of his people, is nonetheless 
not a destroyer or demon, even when the people had been guilty of great profanity. 
The Holy One intends purification through a devastating catastrophe. His purpose 
is not destruction, but a new future for Israel. The use of the term is vividly illus- 
trated in Isa. After the thrice-repeated “‘holy” of the heavenly attendants Isaiah 
acknowledged himself to be a man of unclean lips, whereupon his guilt was taken 
away and his sin covered (6:3—7). The passage contains the special Isaianic expres- 
sion ‘‘the Holy One of Israel” which is used particularly in two contexts. (i) Instead 



of leaning on the Holy One of Israel, the people have relied on horses and chariots 
(31:1; cf. 30:15; 10:20). But as the Holy One, Yahweh himself intends to obtain 
justice in war for his people. (ii) The sinful people, laden with guilt, has despised 
the Holy One of Israel (1:4; cf. 30:12 f.) and will therefore be smitten by him. 

(b) Another aspect of holiness occurs in the Deuteronomic formula “the holy 
people.” In so far as the people are holy to Yahweh, their God (Deut. 7:6; 14:2, 21; 
26:19), the formula explains their separation from the practices and cult objects 
of foreign religions (e.g. 14:21, not eating what dies of itself; 7:5, destroying altars, 
Asherim, graven images, etc.). As, in the last analysis, it is the whole Torah that 
distinguishes Israel from the foreign nations, Deut. 26:18 f. declares that through 
keeping the whole Torah Israel will become a people holy to Yahweh. The under- 
lying thought here finds particularly fine expression in the ““Law of Holiness” (Lev. 
17-26). Lev. 19 which probably combines groups of laws of different kinds is 
headed, “‘You shall be holy for I am holy”’ (v. 2; cf. also 20:7). 

(c) Jeremiah made very little use of the word group. However, Jer. 1:5 is import- 
ant: Yahweh consecrated Jeremiah from his mother’s womb to be a prophet to the 
nations. The words occur much more frequently in Ezek. Special mention may be 
made of the phrase to show oneself holy before someone. With the exception of 
Ezek. 28:22 (judgment on Sidon), it always refers to the house of — Israel (i.e. 
Judah). The clearest example is Ezek. 36:23. Yahweh’s — name has been profaned 
through the scattering of the people, and the exiles have contributed to its further 
profanation. But when Yahweh gathers his people from the four corners of the 
earth, he will manifest himself in them before all the nations as the Holy One, and 
the nations will acknowledge that he is Yahweh. This means that they will recognize 
Yahweh as God, even if he were not their own God. 

(d) If the manifestation of holiness here means the salvation of Judah, the same 
idea is plainly expressed in Isa. 40-55 especially in the title “‘the Holy One of Israel.” 
The Holy One, the Creator of Israel (45:11; cf. 43:15), who will redeem Israel out 
of slavery like a kinsman (43:14), is at the same time the Creator of the world and 
the Lord of the nations (40:25). As such he is sufficiently removed from his people 
to punish them without bias, but he is also sufficiently powerful, after the punish- 
ment, to create something utterly new. Therefore nations will run to the Holy One 
of Israel, because he will glorify Israel (55:5). 

3. By far the most extensive occurrences of the word group are to be found in 
the cultic, ritual texts which many scholars trace back to the exilic and post-exilic 
periods (Exod. 25—Num. 10; Ezek. 40-48; and parts of 1 and 2 Chr.). 

(a) Everything which belongs to the realm of the cultus is holy. There are nu- 
merous holy occasions (e.g. the great — feasts, new moons, — sabbaths, year of 
jubilee). All the objects which serve the cultus are also holy (e.g. + temple, tent 
and ark, altars and their equipment, — first fruits, anointing oil, —> incense). In the 
ritual of the oath, holy — water is used (Num. 5:17). The temple has holy —> money 
(Exod. 28:2 ff.); the priests have holy garments (Exod. 28:2 ff.); the high priest a 
breast plate with the inscription ““Holy to Yahweh’’. Sometimes holiness can be 
thought of almost physically: it is transferred by contact (Exod. 29:37; 30:29) and 
improper contact can be fatal (Num. 4:15, 20). Similarly uncleanness is also trans- 
ferable (Hag. 2:11 ff.). As purity is the proper characteristic of everything that is 



holy (— Pure), it is the duty of everyone who takes part in the cultus to be pure 
(to sanctify oneself). Whoever is unclean must quickly take steps to purify himself. 
There are also holy people (— priests, — Levites, Nazirites) and the holy anointing 
of the Davidic kings (Ps. 89:20 [MT 21]; cf. 1 Sam. 24:6 [MT 7]). A distinction 
can be drawn between the holy and the holiest. The sense of this distinction, 
however, is less a gradation of the holiness which derives from God than a grada- 
tion of human dealings with the Holy One. 

(b) An important factor for understanding this strictly ordered cultic holiness, 
which for the most part must have been priestly knowledge, is that it received its 
significance, not from itself, but from a changed awareness in the post-exilic period. 
This awareness was stamped, on the one hand, by a passionate determination to be 
obedient, and, on the other, by the experience of catastrophic guilt which demanded 
the most meticulous care in dealings with the Holy One. This care does not contra- 
dict Hos. 6:6 (‘I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice’’), but is the ancient cultic 
means of letting the — fear of Yahweh be the beginning of all wisdom. 

(c) Three additional details should be noted. (i) Occasionally the term hagioi, 
holy ones, saints, stands for heavenly companions of God (e.g. Dan. 7:21 ff.; ina 
different sense 7:18). (ii) Only rarely are the members of the holy nation called 
saints or holy. In a late wisdom Ps. saints are mentioned in parallel to those who 
fear Yahweh (34:9 [MT 10] — Convert; cf. 16:3, where the context is unfortu- 
nately corrupt). In Dan. 7:18 they are those who stand by their God in the war 
between Yahweh and the world powers, and receive the kingdom. (111) On only 
three occasions is Yahweh’s — Spirit called holy (Ps. 51:11 [MT 13]; Isa. 63:10 f.). 
In Isa. 63:10 f. the Spirit referred to is the Spirit whom God put among his people 
in the exodus but whom Israel has grieved through rebellion. 

4. (a) Inter-Testamental Judaism introduced no real innovations into this scheme 
of holiness, apart from the fact that the Scriptures were now also called holy 
(1 Macc. 12:9; — Writing). Insignificant as this change might appear, it was never- 
theless revolutionary. For from now on the Scriptures were to form the new 
pivotal point for the system of holiness in Judaism, thereby replacing the — temple. 
This process was, admittedly, only completed in the Rab. writings with their theory 
of the Holy Spirit as the Spirit who speaks in the Scriptures (TDNT VI 382 f., 
385 f.). Hence, the pupils of the scribes (the holy — People) and those who obeyed 
the Torah were in particular regarded as holy (SB II 691 ff.). Meanwhile, as it was 
not the system of temple holiness that played the decisive role in every-day life but 
the exposition of the Torah in terms of wisdom determined by the scribes, holiness 
focussed more and more upon daily life. Nevertheless, temple holiness which was 
commanded in the Scriptures and which became a kind of religious rule was not 

(b) An important feature was the slow development of the term ‘‘the saints’’ for 
the members of the Jerusalem cultic community. 1 Macc. 1:46 is significant: 
Antiochus’ men wanted to profane the sanctuary and the saints, i.e. those who were 
true to the law and had by their suffering demonstrated that they steadfastly 
belonged to Yahweh. The same situation of suffering no doubt lies behind Tob. 
12:15: the holy ones (angels) present to God the prayers of the saints. 

(c) The book of Enoch and the Qumran corpus indicate a further extension of 



the term. Eth.Enoch 48:8 f. pronounces judgment on the mighty ones of the earth 
who will be delivered into the hands of the elect. “As straw in the fire so shall they 
burn before the face of the holy: As lead in the water shall they sink before the 
face of the righteous, And no trace of them shall any more be found.”’ The context 
shows that it is suffering that qualifies the righteous as holy who will be vindicated 
in due course (cf. v. 7). 

(d) In Qumran the community saw itself as the eschatological, priestly com- 
munity of the saved in which the ordinances of purification which were originally 
obligatory only for the priests were made binding for all the members. The concept 
of holiness plays a big part in the Qumran texts especially in expressions of self- 
designation. The community described itself as “‘the saints of his people’’ (e.g. 
1QM 6:6), God’s “‘holy people” (1QM 14:12), “men of holiness” (1QS 8:13 etc.), 
and the “‘remnant of holiness” (1QS 8:21). It is the eschatological temple, “‘a House 
of Holiness for Israel, an Assembly of Supreme Holiness for Aaron” (1QS 8:5 ff.). 
Its members formed a unity with the heavenly community of — angels who were 
likewise called ““Holy Ones” (cf. 1QS 11:8, 1QH 11:12). Thus there prevailed at 
Qumran a priestly concept of holiness in which the temple cult was replaced by 
special ways of obedience to the Torah such as washing, cultic meals, and espe- 
cially observance of the calendar (1QS 9:3 ff.). 

NT When we leave the realm of the OT and enter that of the NT, two facts stand 

out. First, God is only seldom described as holy (Jn. 17:11; 1 Pet. 1:15f.; 
Rev. 4:8; 6:10), and Christ is only once called holy in the same sense as God (Rev. 
3:7; cf. 1 Jn. 2:20). The concept of holiness in the NT is determined rather by the 
Holy — Spirit, the gift of the new age. 

Secondly and following from this, the proper sphere of the holy in the NT is not 
the cultus but the prophetic. The sacred no longer belongs to things, places or rites, 
but to the manifestations of life produced by the Spirit. But since prophecy did 
not readily lend itself to the building up of a corporate consciousness, as time went 
on use was made of the holy priesthood (— Priest) and the royal priesthood of all 
the saints. Hence cultic, sacral conceptions of holiness were again extensively taken 
up in the early church. 

1. (a) A number of passages remain entirely within the framework of OT tradi- 
tion: God’s — name is called holy (Lk. 1:49), also his — covenant (Lk. 1:72; cf. 
1 Macc. 1:15, 63), his — angels (Mk. 8:38; Lk. 9:26; Acts 10:22; Jude 14; Rev. 
14:10), his attendants (Eph. 2:19; Col. 1:12; 1 Thess. 3:13; Rev. 18:20), the — 
Prophets (Lk. 1:70), and the — Scriptures (Rom. 1:2), especially the — law (Rom. 
7:12). Matt. 23:17, 19; 24:15; 27:53 and Lk. 2:23 are concerned entirely with the 
Jewish cultus. 

(b) The synoptic tradition introduces the specifically NT emphasis. Jesus was 
addressed by the demons as “‘the Holy One of God’’ (Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34). In the 
LXX this title occurs only in Jdg. 13:7 and 16:17 and means that the bearer has 
been filled by the holy. This expression indicates that Jesus was endowed at his 
—> baptism with the Holy — Spirit and was driven into the wilderness for forty 
days by the Spirit, like one of the ancient prophets or a Nazirite, before he per- 
formed his first miracle (Mk. 1:21 ff.). We find probably the same concept in 
Lk. 1:35: “‘the child to be born will be called holy, the Son of God.” As Samson 



was a holy one of God from his mother’s womb (Jdg. 13:7), Jesus was holy from 
his conception, i.e. filled by the Holy Spirit (cf. Mk. 6:20 of John the Baptist). 

A somewhat different, but analogous, idea can be recognized in Acts 4:27 (cf. 
3:14), where Jesus is called God’s “holy servant’’ (— Son of God, art. pais theou). 
The inhabitants of Jerusalem have rejected him, as they had always denied and 
killed the prophets in the past (7:51 f.). In all these cases holy means belonging 
to God and authorized by God. Hence, resistance to Jesus is equivalent to resistance 
to God. H. Seebass 

(c) The first petition of the Lord’s Prayer contains the words: “‘Hallowed be thy 
name [hagiasthéto to onoma sou] (Matt. 6:9; Lk. 11:2). The vb. appears only here 
and at Matt. 23:17, 19 in the Synoptic Gospels. ““To ‘hallow’ the name (i.e. the 
nature of God as known through his self-revelation in history) means, not only to 
reverence and honour God, but also to glorify him by obedience to his commands, 
and thus prepare the coming of the Kingdom’’ (D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, 
1972, 136). J. Jeremias links the petition with the Kaddish, an ancient Aramaic 
prayer which formed the conclusion of the synagogue service and which he be- 
lieves Jesus knew from childhood. Jeremias reconstructs the prayer as follows: 
‘“‘Exalted and hallowed be his great name in the world which he created according 
to his will. May he let his kingdom rule in your lifetime and in your days and in the 
lifetime of the whole house of Israel, speedily and so on. And to this say: amen”’ 
(The Prayers of Jesus, 1967, 98). According to Jeremias, the first two petitions of 
the Lord’s Prayer make entreaty for the revelation of God’s eschatological king- 
dom. “‘Every accession to power by an earthly ruler is accompanied by homage in 
words and gestures. So it will be when God enters upon his rule”’ (ibid. ; cf. Rev. 4:8; 
11:17; 22:20; cf. 1 Cor. 16:22; Ezek. 36:23). The petitions are a cry from the 
depths of distress. From a world enslaved by evil, death and Satan, the disciples 
are to lift their eyes to the Father and cry out for the revelation of his glory, know- 
ing in faith that he will grant it. According to Ernst Lohmeyer, the sanctification 
prayed for is both positive and negative. “First, it means the abolition of everything 
in the sensory realm contradictory to God’s holiness —for the only one who is 
holy in his being and his actions is the one who, like the angels in the service of 
God, matches his actions with his being and his being with his actions. So, secondly, 
it means the elevation and therefore the consummation of all human and historical 
being in the holiness of God: ‘You must be perfect as your heavenly Father is 
perfect.’ This process of sanctification also leads beyond itself, for its ultimate end 
is not the sanctification of the world through God, but the sanctification of God 
through the world. Even the world and mankind are only elements in the process 
of sanctification in which God sanctifies himself”? (The Lord’s Prayer, 1965, 73; 
cf. Matt. 5:48; Hab. 2:14; Num. 14:21; Isa. 11:9). C. Brown 

2. (a) In the Pauline epistles those who name Jesus as their Lord are called hoi 
hagioi, the saints. This was primarily not an ethical expression but a parallel to 
concepts like “‘called’? (Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:2; 2 Cor. 1:1), “elect”? (Rom. 8:33; 
Col. 3:12) and ‘faithful’ (Col 1:2). It implies association with the Holy Spirit. 
Christ is their sanctification as well as their righteousness and redemption (1 Cor. 
1:30), and thus the One in whom they become holy to the true God. “You were 



washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ 
and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11; cf. 2 Thess. 2:13; 1 Pet. 1:1 f.). From 
the resurrection on, Jesus is the Christ in the power which operates according to 
the Spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4). Holiness is a condition of acceptance at the 
parousia and of entering upon the inheritance of God’s people (Col. 1:12; Acts 
20:32; 26:18). In all these cases holiness implies a relationship with God which is 
expressed not primarily through the cultus but through the fact that believers are 
‘led’? by the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:14). As in the OT, holiness is a pre-ethical term. 
At the same time, as in the OT, it demands behaviour which rightly responds to the 
Holy Spirit. 

(b) Sanctification is like the growth of fruit which results in eternal life (Rom. 
6:19-22; cf. 1 Thess. 4:3-7). Spiritual, rational worship is the offering of oneself 
as a living, holy sacrifice, acceptable to God (Rom. 12:1). The saints are not simply 
“nice” and worthy people. They are those who are called, and an essential aspect 
of sanctification is love for all the saints (Eph. 1:15), standing by them in need 
(Rom. 12:13), and not profaning the sacred by bringing disputes with fellow- 
believers before secular authorities, but allowing the saints to judge them (1 Cor. 
6:1 f.). In Paul’s judgment, a non-Christian marriage partner does not profane the 
Christian. On the contrary, the non-Christian partner is sanctified by the Christian, 
just as the children of the marriage are also sanctified (1 Cor. 7:14). Because it is 
God himself who sanctifies (1 Thess. 5:23), bearing fruit unto sanctification is all 
the more important (Rom. 6:22; cf. Phil. 2:12-16). 

3. (a) Heb. presents a highly specialized aspect of holiness. Christ, as the high 
priest, is the one who sanctifies his people (13:12; 2:11), and officiates in a sanctuary 
not made with hands (9:24; 8:2). The division of Israel’s earthly sanctuary (ta 
hagia) into Holy Place and Holy of Holies (9:2 f.) shows that ultimate access to the 
sanctuary has not yet been achieved. But Christ has entered the sanctuary once for 
all with the gift of his blood and has achieved eternal redemption (9:12; 10:14). 
His self-offering makes absolute the animal sacrifices of the temple. By the will of 
God ‘‘we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ 
once for all’? (10:10). But Heb. warns us, “since we have confidence to enter the 
sanctuary”’ (10:19), not to defile the blood of the covenant, through which each 
one has been sanctified; “for we know him who said, ‘Vengeance is mine, I will 
repay.’ And again, “The Lord will judge his people’ ” (10:29 f.; cf. Deut. 32:35 f.). 
Therefore we are to strive for peace with all men and the holiness without which 
no one can see God (12:14). Conversely, the holy brethren (3:1) are to recognize the 
discipline which God applies as a help, for God disciplines in order that we may 
win a share in his holiness (hagiotés, 12:10; cf. Prov. 3:11 f.). 

(b) 1 Pet. is particularly significant in the further development of the concept. 
To the idea of sanctification by the Spirit (1:2) there is added the blunt warning, 
‘“‘As obedient children, do not be conformed to the passions of your former ignor- 
ance, but as he who has called you is holy, be holy yourselves in all your conduct” 
(1:14 f.; cf. Lev. 19:2). This is continued in 2:5: “and like living stones be your- 
selves built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacri- 
fices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” Thus the dynamic of the outpouring 
of the Spirit is here restated in terms of the holy functions of the priesthood. 

H. Seebass 



(c) Believers are again seen as — priests in Rev. 1:6, 5:10 and 20:6: But Rev. 
also depicts the future abode of Christians as the holy city, the new — Jerusalem 
(21:2, 10; 22:19). The most significant feature of Jerusalem was the fact that it 
contained the — temple, the focal point of meeting between God and man. But in 
the new Jerusalem there is no temple, “‘for its temple is the Lord God the Almighty 
and the Lamb” (21:22). These pictures present both a continuity with the divinely 
appointed institutions of Israel and a radical break with the historic Israel. It has 
been argued that to see the church in such institutional terms represents an insti- 
tutionalizing of the dynamic, charismatic character of the primitive Christian 
community. In so doing the church was guarding itself against the type of excesses 
which befell the church at Corinth. But the use of this imagery has a more signifi- 
cant function. On the one hand, its application to the church means that the historic 
institutions in Israel are now obsolete. On the other hand, the use of the concepts 
of priest, temple and holy city in this dynamic and spiritual way affords a perspec- 
tive to the suffering, persecuted church which enables it to see its situation and role 
in terms of God’s purposes. 

(d) In the Fourth Gospel the adj. hagios is used only of the — Father (Jn. 17:11 
in the high priestly prayer of Jesus in the address “Holy Father’’), the — Spirit 
(“‘this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit’’, 1:33; the — ‘‘advocate”’ or “‘para- 
clete”’, 14:26; ‘‘He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ ’’, 
20:22), and the — Son (6:69). This latter passage occurs in Jn.’s account of Peter’s 
confession. In Jn. Jesus is not confessed as the Christ (cf. Matt. 16:16; Mk. 8:29; 
Lk. 9:20) with all its Jewish overtones, but as the ‘““Holy One of God [ho hagios tou 
theou]’ (cf. L. Morris, The Gospel According to John, 1971, 388 ff.). The expression 
is rare. It occurs in the NT only in the address of the demoniac at Capernaum 
(Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:24; cf. Pss. 16:10; 106:16). Although Jn. was thoroughly 
aware of Jewish christology (1:39 ff., 49 ff.; 4:25; 10:36; 12:13; 20:31; cf. C. H. 
Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, 1953, 228 ff.; E. M. Sidebottom, 
The Christ of the Fourth Gospel, 1961, 70 f.), he apparently refrains from giving an 
accepted christological title here. Nevertheless, the fact that he uses the epithet 
“holy” elsewhere only of the Father and the Spirit sets Jesus with God and not 
man. The expression “the Holy One”’ strikingly occurs in the only instance of hagios 
in the Johannine epistles: ‘“But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and 
you all know” (1 Jn. 2:20). The reference is evidently to the Holy Spirit, but the 
context closely links this with the Father and the Son (cf. vv. 22 ff.). 

The vb. hagiazo occurs 4 times in Jn. and is absent from the Johannine epistles. 
In the first instance it denotes the special consecration of Jesus to do the will and 
work of the Father, but its goal is that men might also be consecrated to do God’s 
will. As such, it extends the use of the adj. In reply to the Jews who were about to 
stone him for blasphemy (“‘because you, being a man, make yourself God’’, 10:33; 
cf. Lev. 24:16), Jesus pointed to the extension of the word “‘God”’ to men in the OT 
(10:34; cf. Ps. 82:6) but carefully avoided the title “God” for himself. Instead, 
he asked: “‘Do you say of him whom the Father consecrated [hégiasen] and sent 
into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’ ?” 
(10:36), and went on to claim to be doing the work of the Father. In the high priestly 
prayer Jesus prayed: “‘Sanctify [hagiason] them in the truth; thy word is truth. ... 
And for their sake I consecrate [hagiaz6] myself, that they also may be consecrated 



[hégiasmenoi| in truth’”’ (17:17, 19). Leon Morris draws attention to the use of 
hagiazo in the LXX for the sanctifying of priests (e.g. Exod. 28:41; 29:1, 21) and 
sacrifices (e.g. Exod. 28:38; Num. 18:9). ““He set Himself apart for the doing of 
the Father’s will, and in this context this must surely mean death. It points us to 
Calvary and all that Calvary means. This is connected with the disciples in two 
ways. It is ‘for their sakes.’ He dies for them, to do for them that which they could 
not do for themselves. And further it is ‘that they themselves also may be sanctified 
in truth.’ He dies with a view to the disciples being sanctified, being set apart for 
God” (op. cit., 731 f.; cf. also E. C. Hoskyns, The Fourth Gospel, ed. F. N. Davey, 
19472, 502 ff.). On — truth see Jn. 1:17 and 3:21; cf. L. Morris, op. cit., 293 ff. 
Doing the will of God is also doing the truth (cf. Ps. 119:142 LXX). To do this, 
men need to be consecrated, as the context of all these pronouncements in Jn. make 
clear. C. Brown 

eae iepoc (hieros), holy; iepateia (hierateia), priestly office or 

service; igépateva (hierateud), hold or perform the office 
of a priest; ig povpyéq (hierourgeo), perform holy service, act as a priest; iepatevyia 
(hierateuma), priesthood; ieponpennc (hieroprepés), befitting a holy person or 
thing; ispooviAéw (hierosyled), rob temples; igpd@vtoc (hierothytos), devoted, 
sacrificed to a divinity; iepevc (hiereus), priest; apyiepevc (archiereus), high priest; 
ta igpda (ta hiera), sacrifice; iepa@atyvy (hierdsyné), priestly office, priesthood; 
TO igpov (to hieron), sanctuary, temple. 

The words derived from hieros not only form a common group philologically, but 
are also related internally in their meaning. They are therefore treated all together 
in the CL section. In the or and NT sections, the reader is referred to the article on 
Priest for words connected with priesthood. 

CL hieros is that which is determined, filled or consecrated by divine power. In 

contrast to — hagios, holy, — hosios, devout, pious, and semnos, revered, 
august (—> Godliness, art. sebomai), all of which contain an ethical element, hieros 
denotes what is holy in and of itself, quite apart from any ethical judgment. 
It is not used of the gods themselves, but of their activities. The expression hieron 
genos athanaton, holy race of immortals (Hesiod, Theog. 21), reflects the idea that 
the race of the immortals represents in the universe the realm of the absolutely 
holy. Thus hieros means: (a) what belongs to the sphere of the gods; (b) what has 
been sanctified by the gods; (c) what has been consecrated to the gods. 

1. (a) Among objects described as holy are the head of Zeus (Homer, J/. 15, 39) and 
his bed (Hesiod, Theog. 57), the abode of the gods (the snowy regions of Olympus, 
Aristoph., Nubes 270), the scales of Kronos (Homer, //., 16, 658), the bow of 
Hercules (Soph., Phil. 943), and the chariot of Achilles to whom the son of Kronos 
had granted divine horses (Homer, //. 17, 464). 

(b) The gods sanctified, e.g., the light (Hesiod, Works 337), the air, night and 
day (Homer, //. 8, 66; 11, 194), the earth (Soph., Phil. 706), fruitful ground (Aris- 
toph., Nubes 282), the rivers and streams poured out by Zeus (Homer, Od. 10, 



351), the threshing-floor, because it is sacred to Demeter (Homer, //. 5, 499), the 
fish consecrated to Poseidon (Homer, J//. 16, 407), and also cities like [lium, 
Pergamum, Thebes, Athens, islands like Euboea and even the Hellespont. Similarly, 
people are said to be hieroi, because they possess a trait which comes from the gods. 
This is illustrated by phrases like hieron menos Alkinooio or hieré is Télemachoio 
(Homer, Od. 7, 167; 2, 409); Alcinous received his power from Zeus and Tele- 
machus his might from Athene. In Pindar, Pyth. 5, 97, kings are called hieroi, 
because they received their sovereignty from the gods. But Democritus said of the 
poet that he writes through divine afflatus and sacred inspiration, met’ enthousias- 
mou kai hierou pneumatos (Frag. 18). From the time of Augustus (63 B.C.—A.D. 
14) the Roman emperor was addressed by the title hieros. Not only his person but 
everything connected with him came to be counted as hieros, because it had been 
sanctified by the gods, e.g. the hiera grammata, the imperial decrees (cf. G. Schrenk, 
T DNT III 225). 

2. (a) The thought of consecration to the gods leads into the realm of the cultus 
which was the decisive general factor in determining the meaning of hieros, as a 
glance at its compounds demonstrates. Even if everything which is called hieros 
does not belong directly to the cultus, it nevertheless remains associated with it. 
This remains true, when the choruses in the theatre are called hieroi, for they convey 
a divine message (Aristoph., Ranae 674, 686), when non-cultic songs consecrated 
to the gods are hieroi, and the circle in which justice is administered is called hieros 
(Homer, //. 18, 504). Again, hieros can similarly be used of people, especially of 
those who have been initiated into the mysteries (cf. Aristoph., Ranae 652, anthropos 

(b) ta hiera, lit. the holy things (rarer in the sing.), denotes above all the sacrifice 
(e.g. Homer, J/. 1, 147), and occasionally the sacrificial animal (Homer, J/. 2, 420). 
In post-Homeric times it frequently denoted the omens which accompanied the 
sacrifice. ta hiera was more commonly used for cultic objects (images, vestments, 
sacred utensils etc.), cultic actions, and for the cultus in general (e.g. Hdt., 1, 172; 
cf. 3 Macc. 3:21). 

(c) to hieron has predominantly the meaning of sanctuary, cultic centre. In 
contrast to naos, temple building, and to temenos, sacred area (—> Temple), it is a 
more general term which can denote the temple building, the sacred area, and also 
the sacred grove as the local cultic centre. 

(d) hierdsyné is not particularly frequent and means priesthood, in the sense of 
office, service and living. In contrast, hierateia means priestly activity, the office, 
but this too is not very frequent. The related vb. hierateud, perform the office of a 
priest, was not used until a later period. The vb. hierasthai, to be a priest, is more 
ancient and both words are derived from it. The related adj. hieratikos occurs 
frequently and generally denotes anything priestly. hierateuma is found only in the 
LXX (— Priest). 

3. hierourgeo, perform sacred rites, hieroprepés, befitting the sacred, hierosyleo, 
rob a temple or commit sacrilege, and their derivatives need no further explana- 
tion. But further comment is necessary on hierothytos and especially hiereus and 

(a) hierothytos means devoted, offered to a god, sacrificed, and is a specifically 
cultic term. The plur. ta hierothyta means the sacrifice or sacrificial flesh. In a 



metaphorical sense it occurs in Pindar, Frag. 78, of human sacrificial death as an 
offering to the gods. 

(b) hiereus means priest, sacrificer, diviner. In Homer it occurs in par. to mantis 
U1. 1, 62; 62, 221). In so far as the priest is skilled in dealing with the sacred he is 
also a soothsayer who can give information on things to do with the gods. 

A — sacrifice did not necessarily have to be offered by a priest. The head of the 
family could carry out the family sacrifice, the chief of the tribe the tribal sacrifice, 
and the magistrate the sacrifice for the city. Isoc. laid down the ideal, tén basileian 
hosper hierdsynén pantos andros einai nomizousin, ‘‘they believe that kingship, like 
priesthood, belongs to every man’’ (2, 6). But the great and important cultic centres 
required continuous care and therefore an official priesthood which lived in accord- 
ance with temple rather than family tradition. Even if the work of the priests 
included dealing with many sacred objects, their most obvious and appropriate 
activity was nevertheless the slaughter of the sacrifices. Hence, hiereud, to sacrifice, 
has also the meaning of slay and kill U//. 2, 34; Procopius Gazaeus 2, 25). 

(c) archiereus as a title occurs first in references to non-Gk. high priests (Hdt. 
2, 142, of Egyptian high priests of high rank after the king; cf. the Greek titles 
hierapolos, chief priest, hierarchés, president of sacred rites, high priest). Plato 
used it in connection with his ideal state (Laws 12, 947a); the archiereus was to 
stand annually at the head of all the officiating priests. 

In the Hel. period under the Seleucids there were official archiereis for the satrapies 
of the day. The chief priests of the great sanctuaries carried the same title. Even 
under the Ptolemaic kings archiereis are sometimes mentioned. Under the Romans 
the system of the Seleucids was continued. The provincial high priest of the imperial 
cult was called archiereus tou Sebastou (ton Sebaston). At the head stood the em- 
peror himself as pontifex maximus. From Polyb. (3rd—2nd cents. B.C.) on, archiereus 
was translated by the Lat. pontifex. Over and above these, the title archiereus was 
also granted to local high priests and to the heads of religious communities, in so 
far as these were centred on a sanctuary. 

oT In the LXX the following words form a unified group, for they all go back to the 
Heb. kohén, in form the participle of kahan, to be a priest, serve as priest (its 
etymology is uncertain and does not add anything to our understanding of the word): 
hierateia, hierateud, hierateuma, hieratikos (without Heb. equivalent), hiereus, 
hierourgeo (without Heb. equivalent), hierourgia (without Heb. equivalent), hieroéma 
(without Heb. equivalent), hierdOsyné, archierasthai (without Heb. equivalent), 
archierateuo (without Heb. equivalent), archiereus, archierosyné (without Heb. 
equivalent). If one ignores completely peripheral words (e.g. hierosyled and its 
derivatives in 1 and 2 Macc.; hierodoulos in | Esd.), these form the overwhelming 
majority of instances, the only exceptions being hieros (6 times for Heb. equivalents) 
and hiereia (2 Ki. 10:20 for Heb. “sarah, a solemn assembly for Baal). 
hieros did not fit the Jewish concept of holiness prevailing at the time of the 
translation of the LXX, because it meant what is holy in and of itself apart from any 
ethical element, whereas since the exile only what conformed to the Torah could 
to the Jewish mind be holy. Even the temple in Jerusalem was not generally called to 
hieron until the strongly Hel. writings of the LXX (also Philo and Josephus; 
exceptions are | Chr. 29:4; cf. 1 Chr. 9:27; 2 Chr. 6:13). The word-group could, 



however, be used for the priest and his activities, for this was essentially a matter 
of the cultus for which, according to the law, no one else could be qualified. For 
hiereus, hierateia and hierateuma see the discussion under — Priest. 

NT |. In the NT most of the words in the group occur only rarely. 

(a) hierothyton (only 1 Cor. 10:28) is the meat (— Flesh) which had been slaugh- 
tered in the pagan cult. The fact that some Christians continued to eat it, knowing 
its origin, caused questions of — conscience at Corinth which Paul sought to 
resolve by directing the church to the glory of God and concern for others (1 Cor. 
10:31 ff.). 

(b) hieroprepés, befitting a holy person or thing, worthy of reverence (only Tit. 
2:3) corresponds with the “‘preference for solemn and cultic style’’ in the Pastorals 
(TDNT III 254). The context suggests that the nearest parallel usage would be one 
like Plut., On the Education of Children 14p. 11c, where it is hieroprepestaton to 
accustom boys to the truth. Thus in Tit. 2:3 the older women in the congregation 
should be conformed to propriety in their behaviour. 

(c) hieros, sacred, holy, occurs in 2 Tim. 3:15 in a similarly solemn context of the 
“sacred writings.’ Similar formulae are frequent in Philo and Josephus (cf. TDNT 
III 227). Although the word was otherwise not popular, it could perhaps be used 
more easily of the Scriptures because they possessed a sacred quality all their own. 
In a comparison (1 Cor. 9:13) Paul uses fa hiera in its usual sense of sacred actions. 

(d) hierosylos, temple robber, one who commits sacrilege. In Acts 19:37 Paul 
and his companions were defended by the town clerk of Ephesus against the charge 
of being sacrilegious and blasphemers against pagan temples. Paul was accused 
of teaching that “gods made with hands are not gods” and thus of undermining 
both trade and the temple of Artemis (Acts 19:26 f.). The related vb., hierosyled, 
rob temples (Rom. 2:22), apparently alludes to a problem frequently aired in 
Rab. discussion. To what extent was it permissible to do business in pagan-temple 
utensils and property, although they were ritually unclean? Under certain circum- 
stances such dealings were allowed, if they contributed to the damaging of the 
pagan cult. Paul seems to be rejecting such devious practices (cf. O. Michel, Der 
Brief an die Romer, 1955'° ad loc.). ({Ed.] The verse may also allude to the practice 
of some Jews of removing gold and silver idols from shrines for private profit (cf. 
Josephus, Ant. 4, 8, 10.) 

(e) hierourged, perform holy service, act as a priest with regard to something. In 
Rom. 15:16 Paul makes metaphorical use of the language of the cultus; the Gentiles 
must now offer sacrifice to the true God. A sacrifice can only be acceptable, if it 
fulfils all the conditions for acceptance. The only true offering is the gospel. Paul 
has been ordained, therefore, not as priest but as hierourgon of the gospel, in order 
to give correct instruction in offering sacrifice. 

2. to hieron and hiereus/archiereus occur more frequently. to hieron is, almost 
without exception, a technical term for Herod’s temple (exceptions: any sanctuary, 
1 Cor. 9:13; the temple of Artemis, Acts 19:27). The most important difference 
between it and naos (— Temple) is that to hieron is never spiritualized. It always 
means the structure with its walls, gates, porticos, courts and buildings. The 
pinnacle (Matt. 4:5; Lk. 4:9) of the hieron, which never denoted the temple itself, 
was perhaps the South-East corner of the outer wall, below which the ground fell 



away steeply into the Kidron valley. Lk. 3:37 and Mk. 12:4 ff. refer to the court of 
the women; Acts 3:8 to the court of the men; Mk. 11:15 perhaps to the outermost 
court, that of the Gentiles. Jn. 10:23 mentions Solomon’s portico, one of the great 
colonnades which surrounded the court of the Gentiles and in which teaching took 
place (Mk. 11:27-13:1; Matt. 21:23-24:1; Lk. 20:1-21:38; Jn. 5:14; 7:14, 29; 
8:20; Acts 3:11; 5:12, 21, 25, 42), and also prayer (Acts 2:46; Lk. 18:10). Three 
points are of theological importance. 

(a) The Gospels make it clear that Jesus was frequently in the temple and that he 
did not condemn the form of piety which made use of it. According to Mk. 13:1 ff. 
and par. Matt. 24:1, Lk. 21:5, he announced the destruction of the temple with 
sorrow. When he drove the money-changers and dealers in animals out of the the 
court of the Gentiles and forbade anyone to carry merchandise through it (Matt. 
22:12 ff.; Mk. 11:15 ff.; Lk. 19:45 ff.), he justified his action by saying that the 
temple was God’s house set apart for prayer but men have made it a den of robbers 
(cf. Isa. 56:7; Jer. 7:11). It has become a house of trade (Jn. 2:16). Jesus did not 
seek to free himself from the obligations of the religion of his fathers which was 
held together by the temple. Nevertheless, he did not hesitate to purify it with the 
authority of the one who, when the material temple was destroyed, would in three 
days build the true naos (Jn. 2:19; cf. Mk. 14:58; Acts 6:14). The idea of a special 
holy place is now superfluous. 

(b) The earliest Jewish Christians followed Jesus by using the temple for their 
prayers (Lk. 24:53; Acts 2:46). 

(c) The evangelist Luke shows a particular interest in Jesus’ devotion to the 
temple (2:46), and in that of the early Christians and even in that of Paul, the 
apostle of the Gentiles (Acts 21:26 ff.; 22:17; 24:12, 18, 25:8). He does this to 
prove that the Christians are the true people of God and have been unjustly accused 
by the Jews. 

3. For hiereus and archiereus which belong to the same group — Priest. 

H. Seebass 
[Saws datos (hosios), holy, devout, pious; da10tYH¢ (hosiotés), 
| S holiness, devoutness, piety; avdaloc (anosios), unholy. 

cL In Gk. literature the earliest form of word of this group is hosié. It stood for 

what was in accordance with divine direction and providence. “It is not in 
accord with divine appointment to contrive evil one against another” (Homer, 
Od. 16, 423). hosiés pleon eipein (Emp. 4, 7) means to say more than is required of 
one. More particularly hosios can mean the obligations laid on men in ritual and 
ceremonies, e.g. burial rites. The adj. hosios (found, like hosiotés, from Plato on) 
therefore has the general sense of sanctioned or allowed by divine or natural law. 
hosios is seen in perspective when it is compared, on the one hand, with dikaios 
(— Righteousness). Thus ta hosia kai dikaia (Plato, Politics 301d) means what is 
established by human agreement and divine ordinance. On the other hand, it may 
be compared with — hieros which, as a cultic ritual taboo or as what has been 
sanctified through the sanctuary, stands in contrast with the profane even when 
it has been consecrated to a god. Thus kosmein tén polin kai tois hierois kai tois 
hosiois (Isoc., 153b) means to adorn the city with sacred and profane buildings. 



Used of people, hosios means pious, religious; of actions, pure, clean (Emp., 4, 2, 
the mouth; Aesch., Cho. 378, the hands; cf. 1 Tim. 2:8). To describe the gods, it is 
used late and very rarely along with dikaios (CIG 3830). 

OT hosios is used predominantly to translate Heb. hasid (a poetical word, occuring 

chiefly in the Pss.). hasid denotes the man who readily accepts the obligations 
which arise from the people’s relationship to God, “‘the loyal, the pious one” 
(Koehler-Baumgartner, 319). It is related to hesed which denotes the loyal, loving- 
kindness of Yahweh for Israel within his — covenant (cf. W. Eichrodt, Theology of 
the Old Testament, I, 1961, 232-9). The earliest occurrence (Deut. 33:8) in the bless- 
ing of Levi describes the fellowship of the Levites as “thy hdsid’’, because Levi 
has proved loyal when tested by God. But hasid occurs most frequently in the plur. 
and means the congregation gathered for worship (e.g. Ps. 85:8[9]) serving God 
(Ps. 79:2). “Gather to me my faithful ones [h*siday], who made a covenant with 
me by sacrifice!” (Ps. 50:5). The gentile nations are not hasid, and within the 
people of God the h‘sidim are contrasted in the liturgical Ps. 15 with those declared 
guilty. Even in the context of strict observance of the — law, hdsid can have the 
sense of trusting. Because Yahweh forgives sins, everyone who is hdsid towards 
him prays to him (Ps. 32:6; cf. 52:9 f.[10]). It can also mean that whoever trusts in 
his integrity (LXX hosiotés) is righteous (Prov. 14:32). 

h*sidim as the name of a particular group within Jud. does not occur until the 
time of the Maccabees (1 Macc. 2:42; 7:13; 2 Macc. 14:6). This group seems to 
have lived in accordance with apocalyptic tradition and therefore to have observed 
the law particularly strictly. The absence of the word in the Qumran documents is, 
however, striking. Clearly it was not a self-designation of the community but a 
name attached to it by those outside. ([Tr.] There are grounds for thinking that the 
term dropped out of use, when this group split into two or more parties.) 

God is twice described as hosios. In Deut. 32:4 it translates yasar, upright; God 
observes the decrees which he himself has made. In Ps. 145:17 it stands for hasid. 
God supports the fallen, satisfies the hungry and is near to those who pray to him 
(cf. also Wis. 5:19). God takes hosiotés as an invincible shield (see below on Rev. 
15:4). ta hosia (Deut. 29:19[18], sal6m), are correspondingly, the kindnesses which 
one expects from God, and in Isa. 55:3 (plur. of hesed) the successes which David 
could expect from God (David as a witness to the power of God among the 

NT 1. In the NT Aosios is a rare word (8 occurrences, of which 5 are in quotations; 

hosiotés twice; anosios twice). The most important OT use (hosioi, the congrega- 
tion) does not appear. The members of the Christian community are not h’sidim, 
but chosen ones (eklektoi; —> Election, art. eklegomai) and saints (— hagios). Only 
in the more strongly Hel. writings is there occasional use of hosios (e.g. Lk. 1:75, 
of Jewish piety) and the negative anosios (1 Tim. 1:9, where the law is said to have 
been laid down for the unholy; cf. 2 Tim. 3:2). Eph. 4:24 mentions hosiotés as one 
of the qualities of the new man. 

2. God is twice called hosios in quotations. The hymn of Rev. 15:3, 4 goes back 
to Ps. 145:17 and its context (God alone is hosios). Rev. 16:5 recalls Deut. 32:4; 
God is equally dikaios (just in judgment) and hosios (holy in judgment), when he 
condemns evildoers. 



3. The use of hosios in Heb. 7:26 is unique. Here the word is used absolutely 
in the way in which elsewhere it can be used only of God. As high priest (archiereus), 
Christ is completely hosios, utterly without sin and utterly pure, so that his offering 
is sufficient once for all. Acts 2:27 and 13:35 (quoting Ps. 16:10) make a different 
point. God’s promise, not to let his Holy One (hosios; cf. Heb. hdasid) see destruc- 
tion, was not fulfilled in David. It has only now been fulfilled in Christ. By virtue 
of the — resurrection Jesus is the true hdsid, although he was condemned by the 
religious authorities as a religious criminal. Hence, he is also heir to the kindnesses 
which David was to expect from God (Acts 13:34, quoting Isa. 55:3), and has 
been given authority to judge all nations (Acts 17:31). H. Seebass 
—> Lord, — Priest, — Sacrifice, — Serve, Deacon, Worship, — Temple 

(a). E. H. Askwith, The Christian Conception of Holiness, 1900; J. G. Davies, ‘“The Concept of 
Holiness’’, London Quarterly Review 185, 1960, 36-44; W. Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 
I, 1961; II, 1967 (see index); J. H. Elliott, The Elect and the Holy, Supplements to NovT 12, 1966; 
G. Fohrer, History of Israelite Religion, 1973; F. Hauck, hosios, TDNT V 489-93; O. R. Jones, 
The Concept of Holiness, 1961; L. E. Keck, ‘““‘The Poor and the Saints in Jewish Christianity and 
Qumran’, ZNW 57, 1966, 54 ff.; J. Muilenburg, “Holiness”, 7DB II 616-25; S. Neill, Christian 
Holiness, 1960; M. Noth, ‘““The Holy Ones of the Most High’, The Laws in the Pentateuch and 
Other Studies, 1966, 215-28; R. Otto, The Idea of the Holy, 1923; E. Pax, ““Holy”, EBT I 372-75; 
O. Procksch and K. G. Kuhn, hagios etc., TDNT I 88-115; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, 
I, 1962, 203—7 and 271-79; H. Ringgren, The Prophetical Conception of Holiness, 1948; and Israelite 
Religion, 1966; J. C. Ryle, Holiness, (1879) 1952; D. S. Shapiro, ‘““The Meaning of Holiness in 
Judaism’’, Tradition 7, 1, 1965, 46-80; G. Schrenk, hieros etc., TDNT III 221-32; N. H. Snaith, 
The Distinctive Ideas of the Old Testament, 1944, 21-50; N. Walker, ‘““‘The Origin of the “Thrice- 
Holy’ ”, NTS 5, 1958-59, 132 f.; A. S. Wood, “Holiness”, ZPEB UTI 173-83. 

(b). R. Asting, Die Heiligkeit im Urchristentum, 1930; W. W. von Baudissin, Studien zur semi- 
tischen Religionsgeschichte, II, 1878; H. Bardtke, ““Heilig und Profan”, EKL II 52 ff.; J. Dillers- 
berger, Das Heilige im Neuen Testament, 1926; J. Hanel, Die Religion der Heiligkeit, 1931; B. 
Haring, Das Heilige und das Gute, 1950; E. Issel, Der Begriff der Heiligkeit im Neuen Testament, 
1881; K. Koch, ‘“‘Die Eigenart der priesterschriftlichen Sinaigesetzgebung”, ZT-K 55, 1958, 36 ff.; 
G. Lanczkowski et al., “‘Heilig’’, RGG* III 146 ff.; F. J. Leenhardt, La Notion de Sainteté dans 
l’ Ancien Testament, 1929; O. Schilling, Das Heilige und das Gute im Alten Testament, 1956. 

Hope, Expectation 

Of the various terms which express hope or expectancy, the most frequently used 
and the richest in meaning in NT Gk. are the noun e/pis, the vb. elpizo and their 
derivatives. Both words denote, on the one hand, the act of hoping, but both in- 
clude also the idea of the object hoped for. Thus ta e/pizomena means the good 
things hoped for, and e/pis the object of good hope as well as the act of hope. The 
other words, which are dealt with in a second article, form a group because of their 
common derivation from the stem dok- or dek-, to receive, accept, and have an 
essentially narrower range of meaning. The noun apokaradokia denotes a longing, 
almost impatient expectancy. prosdokaé and prosdokia imply fearful anticipation 
of something (catastrophe, war). prosdechomai, beside its frequent meaning, to 
take up, accept, can also mean wait for, expect, and is therefore also treated here. 

nl éAnic (elpis), expectation, hope; éAzi€q@ (elpizo), expect, 
| ee | hope; anmeAniCw (apelpizo), expect back; npoedAnila@ 
(proelpizo), hope in advance. 


CL elp-, the stem of elpis, elpizd, was formed from the root *vel (cf. Lat. velle, to 

wish) by extension with p (also retained in Lat. voluptas, desire). In secular Gk. 
elpis does not correspond with our word hope, since it is a general word for the 
anticipation of future events of all kinds, of good (hope) or evil (fear). A synonym 
of prosdokia, expectation, it can be used to denote hope by the addition of adjs. 
like agathé, glykeia, hilara (good, bright, joyful). The vb. e/piz6 means not only 
hope, but also expect, suppose, think. 

Living hope as a fundamental religious attitude was unknown in Gk. culture. 
Admittedly Theognis said, “‘As long as you live by honouring the gods, hold on to 
hope!”’ and Horace called fides (faith, loyalty) the companion of spes (hope). But 
in the final analysis men had to stand without hope before the hostile forces of guilt 
and death. Sophocles’ chorus lamented, ““The highest remains, never to be brought 
to life.’’ Seneca called hope the definition of “‘an uncertain good”’. But deification 
and immortality promised by the mystery religions were human pipe dreams. (For 
further examples see R. Bultmann, el/pis, TDNT II 518 ff.) 

OT 1. Hope in the Heb. OT. (a) Heb. has four main vbs. meaning to hope: (1) qawah 

(connected with qaw, stretched out, plumbline), to be stretched out towards, to 
long after, wait for (with God as obj. 26 times); (ii) yahal, to wait, long (for God, 27 
times); (iil) hakdh, to wait (for God, 7 times); (iv) sabar, to wait, hope (for God, 4 
times). The four corresponding nouns are not much in evidence (they are used in 9 
passages of hope in God). The most common is tigwah (17 times). Various forms 
of betah which has more the meaning of trust and security are also translated by 
elpis in the LXX (see 2 below). Hoping as an act stands in the foreground and occurs 
in promises and exhortations, but most of all as a confession of assurance, especially 
in the Pss. The Heb. vbs. of hoping are closely connected with those of trust (— 
Faith, art. pistis). 

(b) Of 146 passages in which vbs. or nouns describe hoping, half do so in a 
secular sense. In these it is an expectation combined with certainty and tension, 
directed towards some definite desired object or event still lying in the future. 
Whether the certainty supporting such an expectation is valid and has an objective 
basis, or whether it is grounded in a subjective and erroneous assessment 
is an open question. What characterizes the judgment of this secular hope is the 
fact that in many passages, despite its personal intensity, it is described as futile. 
Prov. in particular emphasizes that the fool’s hope (i.e. that of the godless) will 
come to nothing (11:7). 

(c) The testimony of the OT to hope in God. This hope is often the subject of the 
OT even where the terms do not occur. In formal structure it resembles secular 
hope (see above), but is essentially different in content, basis and effects. In the 73 
passages in which the hope of the faithful of Israel is expressed through the vb. or 
noun Yahweh is named as the object of hope. ““To hope in Yahweh’’, “‘to wait for 
Yahweh” are expressions created by the OT writers. Those Babylonians whose 
prayers have come down to us never called their gods their ““Hope’’. But an Israelite 
could pray, ““Thou, O Lord, art my hope”’ (Ps. 71:5). Jeremiah spoke of “Thou 
hope of Israel’? (14:8; 17:13). Thus Yahweh was the object, embodiment and 
guarantor of his people’s hope. People wait for his name (Ps. 52:9 RSV mg.), for 
his word of forgiveness (Ps. 130:5), his arm (Isa. 51:5), his salvation (Gen. 49:18). 



In eschatological passages the content of the hope is not expressed in abstract terms 
but in the form of a vision. For this reason the words of hope seldom occur there 
(but see Isa. 25:9; 42:4; 51:5; Hab. 2:3). The horizon of hope in the OT stretches 
far beyond what the majority of witnesses could see in terms of personal hope for 
their individual lives. It embraces Yahweh’s coming in glory, his reign over a new 
—> earth, the — conversion of Israel and the nations, and the new — covenant, 
based on the — forgiveness of sins. An important element in the maintenance of a 
pure hope was the struggle of the classical — prophets against false prophets, with 
their false hope and dreams of salvation. A glance at the prophetic writings and the 
Pss. shows that Israel, throughout a history so frequently marked by judgment in 
the shape of different calamities, repeatedly looked to God for the continuation 
of his gracious dealings with them (cf. Hos. 12:7; Jer. 31:17; Isa. 40:31; Ps. 40:1). 
Such hope, therefore, was a gift of God (Ps. 62:5, “‘my hope is from him’’; Jer. 
29:11, “‘to give you a future and a hope’’). Wherever, humanly speaking, the future 
seemed a dead end, prophets of judgment like Hosea, Jeremiah and Ezekiel opened 
up the divine perspective of a new beginning (cf. Hos. 2; Jer. 29:1 ff.; 31:31-34; 
Ezek. 36;37). In the Pss., where in a lament fearful pleading is followed by state- 
ments of joyous hope, form critics explain the latter as “priestly oracles of 
salvation”, promises of salvation from God mediated to the worshipper by a 

(d) (i) As a subjective attitude, the hope of faith, like secular hope, is a concrete 
personal expectation. Despite the “‘not yet” of the realization of salvation, it looks 
forward confidently though not without tension. However, Yahweh, for whom it 
waits, is not like us men. Since he knows, promises and brings to pass what the 
future holds for his people, hope attains unparalleled assurance in the realm of 
revelation. Despite everything which at present runs counter to the promise, the 
one who hopes trusts God for his faithfulness’ sake not to disappoint the hope he 
has awakened through his word (Isa. 8:17; Mic. 7:7; Ps. 42:5). 

(ii) Hand in hand with confident anticipation of God’s gracious dealing goes 
submission to the sovereign rule of the Almighty. The time and manner of fulfil- 
ment are left to him. Therefore hope and the — fear of God are parallel in many 
Pss. (e.g. 33:18; 147:11; cf. Prov. 23:17, 18). To the one who fears the Lord a 
future and hope are promised. 

(iii) Through confidence and humility hope becomes a patient, persevering 
waiting which can endure anxiety. 

(iv) Waiting for God does indeed make men “‘still’? but not inactive. It demon- 
strates the new strength (Isa. 40:31) they have received by the overcoming of temp- 
tation and by actions directed towards the hoped for future. During the siege 
Jeremiah bought a field to bear witness to the word of the Lord that “‘houses and 
fields and vineyards shall again be bought in this land” (32:6 ff.). 

2. LXX and Rab. Judaism. (a) The LXX uses e/pizo primarily to translate vbs. 
of trusting: (a) 46 times for batah, to feel safe, to rely; (b) 20 times for hasdah, to 
take refuge, to hide; (c) 16 times for yahal, to wait; (d) only twice for gawah, to 
wait anxiously. This last is translated a further 26 times by hypomeno (— Patience), 
which means to hold out rather than expect. This marked rapprochement with the 
vbs. of trusting distinguishes LXX usage from that of secular Gk. and prepares 
the way for the NT understanding of elpizo. 



(b) The whole of post-OT Judaism is characterized by a variety of eschatological 
expectations, directed in the first place towards the coming of the messiah and the 
restoration of the kingdom of Israel. These hopes were often disappointed. Men 
rose with messianic claims and set the enthusiasm of the people ablaze. But sooner 
or later all these movements collapsed. This explains the pessimistic streak which 
accompanied the eschatological expectations of the Rabbis. God’s kingdom could 
only come when Israel was completely obedient to the law. But this gave rise to an 
element of uncertainty: who could really say what complete obedience was? This 
made the individual’s personal hope uncertain too: who could say that God was 
really pleased with him? The Pss. Sol., on the other hand, contain the messianic 
hope, and in the books of the Maccabees the resurrection of the body is attested as a 
hope. (See further R. Bultmann and K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT II 523-30; S. Mo- 
winckel, He That Cometh, 1959, 261-450; —» Jesus Christ.) 

(c) In contrast to this pessimistic view the community of Qumran continued to 
affirm that there was hope for men and that this hope was founded in God’s saving 
actions. Nevertheless, this hope was only valid for the — elect of God. 

(d) In Hel. Judaism the messianic hope retreated behind the idea of the immor- 
tality of the — soul (see especially Philo who hoped only for the moral consumma- 
tion of the individual soul). 

NT 1. Occurrence. It is a remarkable fact of NT usage that e/pizé and elpis play 

no great role in the Gospels. Only the vb. appears, once each in Matt. (quotation 
from the OT, Matt. 12:21 = Isa. 42:4) and Jn. (5:45), and three times in Lk. (6:34; 
23:8; 24:21), in the sense of subjective expectation. The main emphasis on hope is 
found in the Pauline writings (19 out of 31 occurrences of the vb.; 36 out of 51 of 
the noun), and of these particularly in Rom. (4 and 13 occurrences respectively). 
Also prominent are the occurrences in the literature indebted to the Pauline tradi- 
tion: | Pet. (2 and 3 times) and Heb. (1 and 5 times). In Acts both vb. and noun 
(2 and 8 times) are used particularly of the “hope of Israel’? which is interpreted 
as hope in the resurrection. 

apelpizo: the suffix ap- (apo) negatives the meaning of the simple vb., hence 
apelpizo means to cease to hope, to give up hope, to doubt. In the NT it occurs only 
in Lk. 6:35. Here, however, we have a departure from the meaning that can be 
demonstrated elsewhere, and the word means, to hope in return: lend, expecting 
nothing in return (cf. Vulg. nihil inde sperantes). 

proelpizo: to hope before, only in Eph. 1:12. The “‘before”’ means either, if “‘we”’ 
embraces the Jewish Christians: we hoped in Christ before Gentile Christians 
received faith and hope; or it denotes the messianic hope which the Jews had 
before Christ’s coming. 

2. Meaning. In the NT the words never indicate a vague or a fearful anticipation, 
but always the expectation of something good (cf. prosdokia agathou). Where the 
vb. is followed by a prep. (eis tina, epi and en tini), the latter refers to the object on 
which the hope is set. In many passages e/pis denotes not the personal attitude 
but the objective benefit of salvation towards which hope is directed (thus Gal. 5:5; 
Col. 1:5; Tit. 2:13). Where vb. or noun are used absolutely without further quali- 
fication the reference is usually to the eschatological fulfilment (thus Rom. 8:24; 
12:12; 15:13; Eph. 2:12 etc.; — Goal, art. eschatos). 



3. The revelation of Christ as a new situation. All the NT witnesses are agreed 
that through the coming of the promised Christ the situation described in terms of 
hope in the OT has been fundamentally altered. In the Redeemer the world’s day 
of salvation has broken in as God’s great “‘today’’. What was previously future 
has now in him become present for faith: — justification, personal relationship 
to God as his > child, the indwelling of the Holy — Spirit, the new — people of 
God comprising believers from — Israel and the nations. The presence of salvation 
is most strongly emphasized in the realized eschatology of Jn. Therefore the word 
elpis does not occur there. Its absence from Rev. is for a different reason. The 
thoroughly visionary picture of the end and of the foreground of the parousia 
replaces the abstract. Because of the new situation the hope of the NT is reshaped 
as regards both content and basis. However, since the “today” of salvation is only 
apparent to faith, it acquires a double aspect: to the “‘now” one has to add “‘not 
yet” (1 Jn. 3:2), to the “having’’ (~ Fellowship, art. echd) and “being in Christ”’ 
one has to add hope in him and looking for him. 

4. Hope, faith and love. Hope is such a fundamental part of the Christian position 
that this can be described as rebirth to a “living hope”’ (1 Pet. 1:3). In paganism 
there were, of course, ideas of a metaphysical future, but no hope providing comfort 
and freedom from the fear of death (Eph. 2:12; 1 Thess. 4:13). The significance of 
elpis is further clarified by the fact that, along with pistis (— Faith) and agapé 
(— Love), it forms part of the primitive Christian triad (the three fundamental 
elements of the Christian life, e.g. 1 Thess. 1:3; 1 Cor. 13:13). None of them can 
exist without the others. There can be no hope without faith in Christ, for hope is 
rooted in him alone. Faith without hope would, by itself, be,empty and futile 
(1 Cor. 15:14, 17). 

5. The essential features of NT hope are given decisive shape by three factors. 

(a) Its content. It is never ego-centric, but always centred on Christ and on God. 
Its heart is not the blessing of the individual but the universal kingly rule of God, 
in which he will be “all in all’? (1 Cor. 15:28). Resurrection does not mean the 
resumption of a life en sarki, in the — flesh, nor even kata sarka, according to the 
flesh, but the fulfilment of the life received through the new — birth, en pneumati, 
in the — Spirit, kata pneuma, according to the Spirit (cf. Rom. 8). For “‘the last 
Adam became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor. 15:45). In the realm of the word elpis, 
its content is defined as: — salvation (1 Thess. 5:8), — righteousness (Gal. 5:5), — 
resurrection in an incorruptible body (1 Cor. 15:52 ff.; Acts 23:6; 24:15), eternal 
— life (Tit. 1:2; 3:7), seeing God and being conformed to his likeness (1 Jn. 3:2 f.; 
— Image), the — glory of God (Rom. 5:2) or simply doxa (Col. 1:27; cf. 2 Cor. 
3:12, the abiding doxa of NT service). 

(b) Its basis. This does not rest on good works (— law) but on the gracious work 
of God in Jesus Christ. He is therefore called “‘our hope” (1 Tim. 1:1; Col. 1:27, 
‘Christ in you, the hope of glory’’). This Christ is no stranger to the community of 
hope but the One whom they recognize in the gospel as the crucified and risen Lord 
and whose presence they know through the Spirit. Thus their hope is in the “‘future 
of the One who has come” (Kreck). With the gift of his own Son for all God gives 
the certainty that he will give us everything with him through our transfer into the 
Christian community (Rom. 8:32). Because Christ has risen as the — “‘first fruits’, 
we shall also all rise (1 Cor. 15:20 ff.). The Coming One is the Exalted One, whom 



God has already set over all things and given to the church as its head (Eph. 1:22). 

(c) Its nature as a gift. As elpis agathé (good hope), hope is a gift of the Father’s 
grace (2 Thess. 2:16) like faith, and is therefore aroused through the message of 
salvation (Col. 1:23) in which we receive our call. In this k/lésis (— Call, art. kaled) 
the goal of hope in all its riches gives enlightenment (Eph. 1:18), and hope unites 
those who have been called (Eph. 4:4). Through the power of the Holy Spirit we 
receive a superabundance of hope (Rom. 15:13), for he is given us as the — first 
fruits (Rom. 8:23). His indwelling in believers is the guarantee of their resurrection 
(Rom. 8:11). 

6. The characteristics of hope as a subjective attitude. One cannot separate hope 
as a personal attitude from the objective content of hope, since hope is not a 
theoretical knowledge about a promised future salvation but a function of a living 

(a) It is always a confident, sure expectation of divine saving actions. Without 
shutting its eyes to the needs and judgments in the foreground of the parousia, 
hope looks at the coming city of God. pistis and elpis are most closely connected 
(see NT above, 4). Faith gives “‘substance”’ to our hope (Heb. 11:1 NEB) or is the 
‘assurance of things hoped for’’ (on this verse — Form, art. Aypostasis). In Rom. 
4:18 — Abraham’s faith is presented as faith par’ elpida ep elpidi, ‘in hope against 
hope’’, i.e. against what human judgment of the future declared to be impossible 
he set the hope given him through God’s promise. Faith and hope have in common 
the fact that their object is still invisible and unprovable (cf. Rom. 8:24 ff. ho ou 
blepomen, elpizomen, “‘we hope for what we do not see’’). But, like faith, NT hope 
carries unconditional certainty within itself (see 5(a)-(c)). Therefore, confessions of 
hope can be introduced by pisteuomen, “‘we believe’’ (Rom. 6:8), pepeismai, “‘I am 
sure’ (Rom. 8:38), pepoithds, (I am) “certain” (Phil. 1:6). Certain that God’s 
promises of salvation will be realized, the Christian glories in his hope, i.e. he 
gratefully praises God’s grace (Rom. 5:2, kauchémetha ep elpidi, ““we rejoice on 
the basis of our hope’’; cf. Heb. 3:6, to kauchéma tés elpidos, “‘pride in our 

(b) elpis and agapé. Like faith and hope, agapé (—> Love) ‘and hope are also 
essentially related in the NT. If 1 Cor. 13:7 states that love “hopes all things’’, 
Col. 1:4, 5 speaks of “‘the love which you have for all the saints, because of the 
hope. ...” Paul calls the Christians in Thessalonica his “hope and joy” (1 Thess. 
2:19), and says in 2 Cor. 1:7, “‘our hope for you is unshaken’”’. NT hope extends 
both heart and vision. The church, as it waits for the redemption of the body, even 
feels solidarity with the whole ktisis (— Creation) as it lies in travail, and hopes for 
it (Rom. 8: 20-23; on this passage see M. Black, Romans, 1973, 121 ff.). 

(c) NT hope is a patient, disciplined, confident waiting for and expectation of the 
Lord as our Saviour. To hope is to be set in motion by the goal ahead, awaiting 
in this movement towards the goal. It demonstrates its living character by the 
steadfastness with which it waits, by hypomoné (— Patience, art. hypomend), by the 
patient bearing of the tension between the now, as we walk (for the moment) dia 
pisteos, by — faith (2 Cor. 5:7), and our future manner of life (cf. Rom. 8:25; 
1 Thess. 1:3). This waiting is something active, for it involves overcoming. Although 
the waiting may be painful, this too is reckoned positively as “travail” which 



announces “rebirth” (Matt. 24:8). Therefore those who hope are comforted and 
confident (2 Cor. 5:8; 2 Thess. 2:16; | Thess. 4:18). Hoping is disciplined waiting. 
Therefore, in | Pet. 1:13 the warning, ‘“‘set your hope fully upon the grace ...’’, is 
preceded by “gird up your minds’’, i.e. be ready for the onslaught. To this con- 
text belongs the fundamental renunciation of all calculations of the future, the 
humble recognition of the limits set to our knowledge, the submission of our wishes 
to the demands of the battle for life to which we have been appointed. The goal of 
our hope calls us to “watch and pray’’. The man who competes for an earthly > 
crown makes the necessary sacrifices (1 Cor. 9:25). Hope becomes the motive for 
personal purity (1 Jn. 3:3), spurs us on to strive for holiness (Heb. 12:14) without 
which no man can see God. Filled with the longing to return home to his Lord, 
the apostle seeks his glory in pleasing him (2 Cor. 5:8 f.). Hope requires us to hold 
fast our confession of it without wavering (Heb. 10:23) and to be ready to give an 
answer to anyone who asks us to give an account of our hope (1 Pet. 3:15). Finally, 
however, NT hope is a joyful waiting (Rom. 12:12; — Patience, art. hypomeno). 
It gives courage and strength. It protects the inner man as a helmet protects the 
head (1 Thess. 5:8). As a ship is safe when at anchor, our life is secured by hope 
which binds us to Christ, our great High Priest who has entered the sanctuary 
(Heb. 6:18 f.). E. Hoffmann 

—.._._. | dnokapadoxia (apokaradokia), eager expectation; 
| dnoxapadoxia éxdéyoual (ekdechomai), expect, wait for; ékdoxr 
(ekdoché), expectation; anexdéyoual (apekdechomai), wait, wait eagerly; 
mpoadéyopual (prosdechomai), receive, welcome; mpoodoKkdw (prosdokao), wait 
for, look for, expect; tpoodokia (prosdokia), expectation. 

CL & oT While ekdoché (Heb. 10:27 f.) and prosdokia (Lk. 21:26; Acts 12:11 f.) 

are only used of fearful anticipation, apokaradokia appears twice in Paul in 
confessions of hope. The word does not occur in pre-Christian Gk., but the use of 
the simple vb. karadokeo (wait for) is widespread in Hel. Gk. It is formed from the 
noun to kara, the head, and dechomai, accept. In apokaradokeo the prefix apo- 
(according to Bertram) strengthens a negative element. This would make the 
meaning: to anticipate something longingly but anxiously (cf. the negative effect 
of apo- in apelpizo, to doubt; apogindsko, to give up; apeipon — aor. of apolego, to 
forbid, renounce). The compounds of dechomai formed with ek-, apo- and pros-, and 
prosdokao, mostly denote patient waiting for a future goal. 

NT |. In the NT apokaradokia only occurs in Rom. 8:19 and Phil. 1:20. Luther 

translated Rom. 8:19 as “‘anxious waiting’. The Gk. fathers, however, inter- 
preted the noun without any negative tinge as “intense anticipation’’, “strong and 
excited expectation’. At all events, the emotional force of eschatological expec- 
tancy is strongly emphasized here. NEB therefore translates Phil. 1:20 as “I 
passionately hope’’. Rom. 8:19 ascribed to the Ktisis, — creation, a longing for the 
revelation of the children of God. It is they alone who know that the creation has 

been subjected to decay ep’ elpidi, “‘in hope’’. Hope, — elpis, does not remove the 


tension from apokaradokia, but frees it from fear and uncertainty. So the two words 
can stand together (Phil. 1:20) and bear witness to the fact that the power of ex- 
pectation does not lie in strength of feeling but in the certainty which God has 
given and which is peculiar to hope. 

2. ekdechomai, apekdechomai, prosdechomai. The words formed from the stem 
men- are rare in the NT, occurring once each (perimend Acts 1:4, object: the 
promise of the Father, i.e. the Holy Spirit) and anameno (1 Thess. 1:10, object: 
the Son). hypomend means to await only in the LXX, but not in the NT (but cf. 
hypomoné in Rev. 3:10, “‘the word of patient endurance’’; — Patience). The words 
formed with the roots dek- and dok-, however, occur frequently in this sense. 

(a) ekdechomai means await, wait for. In this sense it occurs 6 times, of which 
three are in secular contexts (Acts 17:16; | Cor. 11:33; 16:11), one in a comparison 
(Jas. 5:7 of the farmer who waits for the fruit of the fields) and two refer to waiting 
for the eschata, the last things (Heb. 10:13; 11:10). Christ, seated at the right — 
hand of the Father, is waiting for the moment when his enemies will be made his 
footstool (cf. Ps. 110:1). And — Abraham was waiting for the city with sure 
foundations (a picture of heaven as a world of blessedness and perfect communion 
with God). 

(b) apekdechomai (8 times, of which 6 are in Paul and | in Heb. and 1 in 1 Pet.). 
The word does not occur in the LXX. The prefix ap/apo emphasizes the distance 
between the state of waiting and the time of fulfilment of what is hoped for. Through 
it the one who is waiting is compelled to persevere. NEB renders the word in Gal. 
5:5 “eagerly wait’’. But generally it is only the context which implies the manner of 
waiting. In terms of content the expectation is directed towards the returning Lord 
(Phil. 3:20), who will prove himself to be our ‘Saviour’ as he transforms our bodies, 
towards our entry into the full riches of sonship through the resurrection of the 
body (Rom. 8:23), and therefore towards dikaiosyné, — righteousness, in the last 
judgment (Gal. 5:5). Since the human and the non-human creation share equally 
in the effects of the fall and in salvation, creation’s anticipation of freedom from 
the curse of death is directed ultimately towards the entrance into glory of the 
children of God (Rom. 8:19). The children of God, aware of the nature of hope 
(Rom. 8:24), are waiting di’ hypomonés (v. 25), in patient endurance of the suffering 
of the present age. 

(c) prosdechomai means I accept, but mostly I wait (14 times, of which 7 are in 
secular contexts). Where it is used of the expectations of faith it denotes (i) the 
messianic expectation of Israel (Lk. 2:25, 38: Simeon was waiting for the consola- 
tion of Israel; Anna spoke to those who were waiting for the salvation of Jerusalem), 
and (ii) the eschatological goal of salvation (resurrection, Acts 24:15; mercy in the 
judgment, Jude 21; the incomparable glory that will come with the epiphany, 
Tit. 2:13). 

3. prosdokaoé, I wait, wait for, look for someone or something, expect, occurs 16 
times, of which 5 are in sayings, 2 in 2 Pet. In Matt. 11:3 par. Lk. 7:9 f. it appears 
in the Baptist’s question about the expected messiah. In Matt. 24:50 it is used of 
Jesus’ parousia, which comes unexpectedly. 2 Pet. 3:13 identifies the goal of ex- 
pectation as “‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells’, and 
v. 12 as the inbreaking of the day of God. Those who wait are at one and the same 
time the speudontes, which some interpret as those who strive (thus C. Maurer 



TDNT VI 726) and are zealous (Arndt, 771) some as those who hasten the day 
through their holy conduct. E. Hoffmann 
—> Fullness, — Present, — Promise 

(a). Advisory Commission, World Council of Churches, Christ the Hope of the World, 1954; A. 
Barr, “‘ ‘Hope’ (elpis, elpizé) in the New Testament’’, SJT 3, 1950, 68-77; J. B. Bauer, ‘“‘Hope’’, 
EBT I 376-79; E. Brunner, Our Eternal Hope, 1954; R. Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 
I, 1952, 319-23, 344-47; R. Bultmann and K. H. Rengstorf, elpis, TDNT II 517-35; G. B. Caird, 
W. Pannenberg, I. T. Ramsey, J. Klugmann, N. Smart, and W. A. Whitehouse, The Christian 
Hope, SPCK Theological Collections 13, 1970; H. Conzelmann, Outline Theology of the New 
Testament, 1969, 184-91; E. H. Cousins, ed., Hope and the Future of Man, 1973; W. M. Cunning- 
ham, “The Theology of Hope: An English Language Bibliography”, Canadian Journal of Theology, 
15, 1969, 131-37; W. J. Dalton, ‘“‘ ‘So that Your Faith May Also Be Your Hope in God’ (1 Peter 
1:21)”, in R. J. Banks, ed., Reconciliation and Hope (Leon Morris Festschrift), 1974, 262-74; F. J. 
Denbeaux, “‘Biblical Hope’’, Interpretation 5, 1951, 285-303; J. E. Fison, Christian Hope, 1954; 
T. F. Glasson, His Appearing and his Kingdom: The Christian Hope in the Light of its History, 1953, 
K. Hanhart, ‘“‘Paul’s Hope in the Face of Death’’, JBL 88, 1969, 445-57; B. C. Hanson, Hope 
and Participation in Christ: A Study in the Theology of Barth and Pannenberg, Dissertation, Prince- 
ton Theological Seminary, 1971; F. Kierstiens, ‘““The Theology of Hope in Germany Today”’, 
Concilium 6, 9, 1970, 101-11; W. G. Kimmel, Promise and Fulfilment, 1961; and ‘“‘Eschatological 
Expectation in the Proclamation of Jesus’’, in J. M. Robinson, ed., The Future of Our Religious 
Past: Essays in Honour of Rudolf Bultmann, 1971, 29-48; M. D. Meeks, Origins of the Theology of 
Hope, 1974; P. S. Minear, Christian Hope and the Second Coming, 1954; “Time of Hope in the 
New Testament’’, SJT 6, 1953, 337-61; and ‘““Hope’”’ /DB II 640-43; C. Maurer, prosdokad, TDNT 
VI 725 ff.; J. Moltmann, Theology of Hope, 1967; Hope and Planning, 1971; Theology and Joy, 
1973; and The Experiment Hope, 1975; P. H. Monsma, ““Hope’’, ZPEB III 198 ff.; C. F. D. Moule, 
The Meaning of Hope, 1963; G. O’Collins, ‘“‘The Principle and Theology of Hope’’, SJT 21, 1968, 
129-44; J. A. T. Robinson, Jesus and his Coming, 1957; and In the End, God, 19687; H. Sasse, 
‘“‘Some Thoughts on Christian Hope’’, Reformed Theological Review, 26, 1967, 41-54; H. Schlier, 
‘““On Hope’’, The Relevance of the New Testament, 1968, 142-55; H. C. Snape, ‘“‘Man’s Future on 
Earth and Beyond; The Christian Hope Today”, The Modern Churchman, 7, 1963, 84-92; D. 
Stewart, “In Quest of Hope: Paul Ricoeur and J. Moltmann’’, Restoration Quarterly 13, 1970, 
31-52; G. Vos, “‘Eschatology in the Psalter”, Princeton Theological Review 18, 1920, 1-43; D. E. H. 
Whiteley, The Theology of St Paul, 1964, 233 ff.; D. D. Williams, ““Tragedy and the Christian Escha- 
tology”, Encounter 24, 1963, 61-73; W. Zimmerli, Man and His Hope in the Old Testament, 1971. 

(b). H. Bardkte, H. Conzelmann, E. Schlink, “Hoffnung’’, RGG? III 415 ff.; G. Bertram, apokara- 
dokia, ZNW 49, 1958, 264 ff.; P. A. H. de Boer, “Etudes sur le sens de la racine qgwh’’, Oudtesta- 
mentische Studien, 10, 1954, 225-46; J. van der Ploeg, ‘“‘L’espérance dans l’Ancien Testament”’, 
RB 61, 1954, 481-507; W. Grossouw, “‘L’espérance dans le Nouveau Testament’, RB 61, 1954, 
508-32; W. Grundmann, “Uberlieferung und Eigenaussage im eschatologischen Denken des 
Apostels Paulus’, NTS 8, 1961-62, 12-26; C. H. Hunzinger, “Die Hoffnung angesichts des 
Todes in Wandel der paulinischen Aussagen’’, in Leben angesichts des Todes. Helmut Thielicke 
zum 60. Geburtstag, 1968; W. D. Marsch, ed., Diskussion tiber die ‘‘Theologie der Hoffnung’, 
1967; E. Neuhausler and P. Engelhardt, “Hoffnung”, L7K V 416 ff.; J.-H. Nicolas, “Valeur de 
l’espérance enseignée par l’Ecriture”, Dictionnaire de la Spiritualité, 1960, 1209-16; P. Otzen, 
‘* ‘Gute Hoffnung’ bei Paulus’, ZNW 40, 1958, 283 ff.; A. Pott, Das Hoffen im Neuen Testament, 
1915; G. Sauter, Zukunft und Verheissung, 1965, and ““Erwagungen zum Begriff and Verstandnis 
der Hoffnung heute’, EvTh 8/9, 1967, 406 ff.; J. Schreiner, ““Die Hoffnung der Zukunftsschau 
Israels”, in F. Hoffmann et al., eds., Sapienter Ordinare. Festschrift fiir E. Kleineidam, 1969, 29 ff.; 
H. Schwantes, Schépfung der Endzeit, 1963; E. Schweizer, ‘““Gegenwart des Geistes und eschatolo- 
gische Hoffnung bei Zarathustra, Spatjiidischen Gruppen und den Zeugen des Neuen Testaments”’, 
in W. D. Davies and D. Daube eds., The Background of the New Testament and its Eschatology, 
In Honour of Charles Harold Dodd, 1956, 482-508 (reprinted) in Neotestamentica, 1964, 153 ff.); 
T. C. Vriezen, ‘““Die Hoffnung im Alten Testament’, TLZ 78, 1953, 577 ff.; C. Westermann, 
Theologia Viatorum 4, 1952, 19 ff.; and ““Das Hoffen im Alten Testament’’, in Forschung am Alten 
Testament, ThB 24, 1964, 219 ff. 



House, Build, Manage, Steward 

Oikos oikoc (oikos), house, dwelling-place; oifkia (oikia), 
| dwelling, house; oikém (oiked), dwell, inhabit; katolkéw 
(katoikeo), inhabit; Katoixntnpiov (katoikétérion), dwelling place, habitation; 

Katolkila (katoikizo), settle; évo1xkéw (enoikeo), live in, dwell in; oikeioc (oikeios), 
belonging to the house, member of the household. 

CL oikos is attested as early as Mycenaean Gk. and has been handed down from 

Homer on. It means both the dwelling place and the structure. oikia, from 
Herodotus on, denotes the dwelling, the house. Originally the two words were 
differentiated in meaning, in that oikia denoted the dwelling place, and oikos the 
whole house, the premises, the family property, and even the inhabitants of the 
house. This original distinction was maintained in Attic law, where oikos meant the 
inheritance and oikia the house itself. Later, particularly after the LXX, the dis- 
tinctions were not maintained and the words were used synonymously. 

In popular speech oikos meant any kind of house, but frequently also a particular 
house and even a temple. In such cases the divine name attached to oikos indicated 
the god to whom the temple was dedicated. But the word was also used in the 
metaphorical sense. It denoted the family, the property and other similar concepts 
connected with the house itself. 

The vb. oiked, which belongs to oikos and oikia, occurs frequently in Gk. from 
Homer on, and also in the LXX. Used intrans. it means to have one’s dwelling, 
dwell; trans. to inhabit, occupy. 

oT 1. oikos and oikia appear very frequently in the LXX chiefly to translate the 

Heb. bayit. Both words denote the building (the house, and also palace or 
temple). But because Heb., like Gk., has no word for the small social unit which 
we call the family, bayit (and hence LXX oikos) acquired, in addition to its original 
meaning of dwelling place, that of household (those bound together by sharing the 
same dwelling place), in a broader sense that of family and clan, and even that of 
the still bigger tribal unit (e.g. the house of Judah). When Ps. 127:1 says that God 
must build the house if it is to endure, it refers both to the communal lot of those 
who dwell under one roof, and also to their heirs and descendants (2 Sam. 7:11 f., 
16,18 f., 25-29) who are obliged to give one another unconditional protection (the 
father’s house). 

2. Used with God’s name, oikos, as in secular Gk., means the temple, the sanc- 
tuary: oikos theou (house of God) or oikos kyriou (house of the Lord). Both ex- 
pressions are common. Beside criticism of the idea that anyone could build God a 
house (2 Sam. 7:5 f.; 1 Ki. 8:27; Isa. 66:1) we find sincere expressions of joy at the 
privilege of being able to’ be in the house of the Lord, especially in the Pss. (e.g. 23:6; 
26:8; 27:4; 52:8[10]); 84:4, 10[5, 11]; 92:13[14]; 122:1). To this feeling corresponds 
the longing for God’s house on the part of those who are prevented from being 
there (cf. Ps. 42:4[5]). 

3. It is questionable whether, in the OT, the idea of the “house of God”’ is trans- 
ferred from the — temple to the congregation worshipping there, in the same way 
that a transference of meaning has taken place from “‘house”’ (dwelling place) to 
“family”? (community). All the statements about the house of God remain firmly 



attached to the earthly sanctuary. The only verse which expressly lies behind the 
NT understanding of the congregation as the “house of God”’ (Num. 12:7 = Heb. 
3:2, 5) does not refer directly to the temple but to the land in which Yahweh 
(through his people) has settled and therefore reigns. It is more conceivable that 
an extended use of “house of David’’ for the people of God prepared the way for 
the idea that the community was ‘“‘God’s house”’ and ‘‘God’s building”’ (cf. the 
promise to rebuild ‘“‘the booth of David that is fallen’? [Amos 9:11; Acts 15:16)]). 
4. Going beyond the OT we find that in various phrases in the Qumran documents 
‘“‘house”’ denotes the Qumran community which understood itself as a temple or 
sanctuary (1QS 5:6; 8:5, 9; 9:6; CD 3:19). On the whole subject — Temple; 
— Holy; cf. B. Gartner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New 
Testament, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 1, 1965. 

NT In the NT, oikos and oikia, which are virtually used as synonyms, have the same 

range of meaning as in secular Gk. and in the LXX. Nevertheless, they occur ina 
number of characteristic phrases peculiar to the NT (see below 4 (b)-(f) and 5). In 
these oikos appears far more frequently. 

1. The most frequent use of both oikos and oikia is in the lit. sense of house (e.g. 
Matt. 2:11; 7:27-7; 9:7; Mk. 7:30) and in the simple metaphorical sense of 
family, household (e.g. Matt. 13:57; Mk. 6:4; Jn. 4:53; 1 Cor. 1:16; 16:15; 
2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19) (cf. Arndt, 559 f., 562 f.). 

2. Passages which use oikos theou for the -»temple are self-explanatory 
(Mk. 2:26 par. Matt. 12:4, Lk.6:4; Matt. 21:13 par. Mk. 11:17, Lk. 19:46 = 
Isa. 56:7; Jn. 2:16 f.; Lk. 11:51). The only question which one has to ask about 
Acts 7:46—-S0 is whether there is here a criticism of Solomon’s building of a house 
(v. 47) in its contrast with David’s request to be allowed to make God a tent dwelling 
(skénoma v. 46; — Tent). The statement, illustrated by the quotation from Isa. 
66:1, that “the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands” (v. 48) has 
been thought to support such an interpretation, according to which Solomon’s 
building of the temple was a deviation from the true worship of God. (Cf. E. 
Haenchen, The Acts of the Apostles, 1971, 285 ff. who points out that Judaism did 
not represent Yahweh as dwelling in the temple but only his name. Nevertheless, 
Stephen’s words would have had a blasphemous ring for Jews.) 

3. The passages which speak of “the house of Israel,” “‘the house of Jacob,” or 
“the house of Judah’ (Matt. 10:6; 15:24; Acts 2:36; Heb. 8:8, 10 citing Jer. 
31:31 ff.; Lk. 1:33; Acts 7:42-43 citing Amos 5: 25-27) are linked with the meta- 
phorical sense of house, family, race (cf. also “house of David” Lk. 1:27, 69; 2:4) 
which they extend in the direction of the people of God. In this they are following 
the example of the OT, as the frequent references to the OT in these illustrations 

4. (a) The NT designation of the Christian community as the house of God which 
is ‘‘an integral part of the primitive Christian kérygma’”’ (O. Michel, TDNT V 126), 
goes beyond the OT model. This meaning of house may have had several roots. 
There are the OT concepts of God’s proprietary rights over his people (expressed 
there, admittedly, more through the images of the vine, the vineyard and the planta- 
tion, Hos. 10:1; Isa. 5:7; Jer. 2:21; Ps. 80:8 ff.[9 ff.]; cf. 1 Cor. 3:6 ff.), but 
which apply equally in the case of the house (—> People; —> Generation). Gnostic 



ideas of a ‘‘heavenly building’’, identical with the heavenly body of the primal man 
and redeemer may also have exercised an influence if they were earlier than the NT 
(— Body; — Head; cf. also O. Michel, TDNT V 122 f.). Further, one must take 
into consideration the fact that the Qumran documents also see the community as 
a holy house, built on the foundation of truth (1QH 7:8 f.). 

(b) In its exposition of Num. 12:7, Heb. 3:1-6 is linked to the OT in its termi- 
nology. But it extends the thought. Moses and Christ are contrasted: Moses as 
‘‘faithful in all God’s house as a servant’’, Christ as the ‘“‘son’”’ and the “‘builder’”’ 
of the house and, as such, superior. Whatever sense “house’’ may have had in 
Num. 12:7 (all Israel as God’s people or God’s “royal household”’; so T. J., cf. O. 
Michel, Der Brief an die Hebrder, KEK 13, 19661", 96), for the writer of Heb. it 
meant that the Christian community (— Church) is “God’s house,” as 3:6b 
demonstrates. ““We are his house, if we hold our confidence and pride in our hope 
firm to the end”’ (RSV mg.). 

(c) What is important in this connection is not only that God or Christ is regarded 
as the builder of the house. In contrast to Philo, it is not the individual, the “‘pure 
soul’’ that is seen as God’s house, but the Christian community as a whole which 
is designated as such (cf. O. Michel, TDNT V 123-30). Moreover, the passages in 
which Paul speaks of the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 3:16; 6:19) 
and which are undoubtedly connected with the idea of the house of God, are not 
to be understood purely individualistically. They deal objectively with the Christian 
community and the problems which arise from the fellowship. 

(d) Eph. 2:19-22 shows that the ideas contained in the terms ‘“‘house of God”’ 
and “temple of God” naturally run into one another. Here, no less than six 
different derivatives of oikos (nevertheless, not oikos itself) are used to describe the 
spiritual reality of the community under the metaphor of the temple and of the 
building. They are paroikos (v. 19, stranger, — Foreign), oikeios (v. 19, members 
of the household; cf. Gal. 6:10), epoikodomeo (v. 20, build on; cf. 1 Cor. 3:10, 12, 
14; 1 Pet. 2:5 v.13; Acts 20:32 t.r.; Col. 2:7; Jude 20), oikodomé (v. 21, building, 
structure; cf. 4:12, 16, 29; -+oikodomed below), synoikodomeo (v. 22, build 
together), and katoikétérion (v. 22, dwelling-place; cf. Jer. 9:10; Rev. 18:2). In 
1 Pet. 2:4f. the images again overlap. Christians are exhorted to allow themselves 
to be built up as spiritual stones into a spiritual house (— oikodome6), in order to 
present spiritual sacrifices to God as (and here the picture changes) a spiritual 
priesthood. When 1 Pet. 4:17 reckons that the judgment will begin with the house 
of God, the natural assumption is that the Christian community is the house of 
God. Similarly, 1 Tim. 3:15 expressly identifies ‘the house of God” with ‘“‘the 
church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth’. 

(e) Given the figurative use of the terms, it was inevitable that many related 
concepts and images would be introduced to elucidate the truth concerning the 
Christian community which is expressed in the phrase “‘the house of God’’. There is 
the idea of the foundation (1 Cor. 3:10-12; Eph. 2:20; 2 Tim. 2:19; — Firm, art. 
themelios), of Christ as the corner stone (Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:4) and 
Christians as living stones (1 Pet. 2:5; — Rock), of the pillars (1 Tim. 3:15) and 
above all of the temple (1 Cor. 3:16 f.; 6:19; 2 Cor. 6:16; Eph. 2:21; — Temple), 
All these passages and concepts, as well as all the derivatives of oikos, must be 
taken into account in one’s interpretation. 



(f) It is strange, however, that the concept of the house of God remains confined 
to the idea of a spiritual building and is not extended in the sense of the family, the 
other metaphorical meaning of oikos, which could have been used in the sense of 
the family of God. Probably the phrase “‘the house of God’ was, through OT 
thought, too closely linked to the sanctuary for such an extension to be possible. 

5. (a) What could be conveyed by the idea of the family of God had, in fact, 
already come into being in the primitive Christian community through the house 
churches. The household as a community (the family included the slaves, according 
to the ancient concept of it) formed the smallest unit and basis of the congregation. 
The house churches mentioned in the NT (Acts 11:14; 16:15, 31, 34; 18:8; 1 Cor. 
1:16; Phlm. 2; 2 Tim. 1:16; 4:19) no doubt came into being through the use of the 
homes as meeting places. The gospel was preached in them (Acts 5:42; 20:20), 
and the Lord’s supper was celebrated in them (Acts 2:46). The conversion of the 
head of the house brought the whole family into the congregation and — however 
it is to be understood — into the faith (Acts 16:31, 34; 18:8; cf. Jn. 4:53 where, as 
an exception to the rule in this connection, we find oikia and not oikos). 

The NT also speaks of the — baptism of whole households in the same way 
(1 Cor. 1:16; Acts 16:15; cf. Acts 16:33; perhaps also Acts 18:8). The question 
whether one may conclude from these indications that the primitive church prac- 
tised infant baptism is discussed in the articles on Baptism. 

(b) The formation of the house churches, which can be explained on the basis 
of the missionary situation, was of the greatest significance for the spreading of the 
gospel. With them the early church took over the natural order of life, without 
falling into idealization of the house churches. The way in which the Gospels take 
up Micah’s prophecy of the end-time (Mic. 7:6 = Matt. 10:35 f. par. Lk. 12:53) 
indicates that the primitive community had to reckon with the disruption of the 
family for the sake of the gospel. Those who take this upon themselves are 
promised “‘now in this time’’ new “‘houses and brothers and sisters and mothers 
and children” (Mk. 10:29 f. par. Matt. 19:29, Lk. 18:29 f.). The place of the 
disrupted family is taken by the family of God, the Christian community. 

6. In Jesus’ word of revelation in Jn. 14:2 the disciples are promised that many 
dwelling places are ready in the Father’s house, into which the disciples will be 
received when the Lord returns. Rab. and gnostic parallels (cf. also Eth.Enoch 
45:3), which suggest the idea of the right to a heavenly dwelling, help to explain 
the expression oikia tou patros mou, ‘“‘my Father’s house’’. Two factors ought, 
however, to warn us against an over-hasty mythological localization of the concept: 
(a) the linking of the promise of a dwelling to the return, and thereby to the fulfil- 
ment of the kingdom of God, and (b) the similarity of the expression to the idea 
of the house of God (oikos theou and naos theou) and the related thought of the 
right of sanctuary (cf. A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Johannes, 1930, 292). 

7. (a) The vb. oiked occurs in the NT both in the lit. and in the metaphorical 
sense. 1 Cor. 7:12 f., which deals with the living together of the Christian and 
non-Christian partners in mixed marriages, belongs to the former category. 1 Tim. 
6:16 stands on the borderline between lit. and metaphorical meanings: God “‘dwells 
in unapproachable light’. Jewish and Hel. ideas (see the whole verse) are combined 
in this statement of the unutterable beauty of God. In the metaphorical sense 
oiked is used in describing the inner processes in man (5 passages out of 8): the 



phrase “‘sin.. . dwells in me’’ (Rom. 7:20; cf. 7:18) depicts the old man, while the 
truth about the new man is testified to in the sentence, repeated like a confession of 
faith, “the Spirit of God dwells in you”? (Rom. 8:9, 11; 1 Cor. 3:16). katoikizo 
occurs in the same sense in Jas. 4:5. 

(b) The compound katoiked occurs more frequently in the NT than oikeo. 
Intrans. it means dwell; trans. inhabit. Beside the widespread use of the word in 
its lit. meaning, it also is used for the possession of a man by God, by Christ or 
by ungodly powers. Demons “‘dwell’’ in a man (Matt. 12:45 par. Lk. 11:26); but 
to believers God’s purpose is “‘that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith” 
(Eph. 3:17). Col. 2:9 can say of Christ that “‘in him the whole fullness of deity 
dwells bodily’’ (cf. Col. 1:19) and thus express in language which has affinities with 
gnosticism the complete union between Christ and God (but — Fullness, art. p/éroo, 
NT 5 (b)). 

The noun katoikétérion, dwelling place, home, which has its origins in the LXX, 
occurs in connection with the great picture of the Christian community as the 
spiritual building and temple (Eph. 2:19-22). 

(c) A further compound, enoiked, dwell in, indwell, is only used in the meta- 
phorical sense in the NT, in fact similarly to katoiked. God himself will dwell 
among men (2 Cor. 6:16 citing Lev. 26:11 f.), and the Holy Spirit dwells in believers 
(Rom. 8:11; 2 Tim. 1:14). But the word of Christ (Col. 3:16) and faith (2 Tim. 1:5) 
may also be said to dwell in men. On the other hand, the same may be said of sin 
(Rom. 7:17). 

(d) The adj. oikeios occurs from Hesiod on and means “belonging to the house”’. 
In the NT it is only used as a noun meaning member of the household. The lit. 
meaning appears in | Tim. 5:8. In the other two passages it is determined by the 
understanding of the congregation as the house of God (see above 4). Eph. 2:19 
assures the Gentiles that they are no longer strangers (paroikoi; — Foreign) but 
members of the household (oikeioi — note the play on words!), accepted into the 
full fellowship of the house of God, i.e. the Christian community. Gal. 6:10 
reminds the Christian of his duty to do good to all, but has him begin specifically 
with “‘those who are of the household of faith,’ the members of the family of God. 

J. Goetzmann 

pana oikodopé@ (oikodomed), build, build up; oikodopy 
| a | (oikodomé), the process of building, a _ building; 
émoikodopéw@ (epoikodomed), build on something, build further; cvvoixodopéw 
(synoikodome6), build together with. 

CL The vb. oikodomed, attested from Hdt. on, means to build, build up, and is used 

in many ways in the lit. sense, but also in the fig. The noun oikodomé, building 
up, building, occurs frequently in Koine Gk.; it meant originally the process of 

OT In the LXX oikodomeé stands for Heb. bandh and occurs frequently (almost 350 
times). It is used in most cases in the lit. sense for the erection of a building. 
oikodomé, on the other hand, occurs very rarely and almost entirely in later writings 

(17 passages; for Heb. words only 4 times in Chr. and Ezr.). 


The metaphorical use of oikodomed, which occurs particularly in Jer., is inter- 
esting. To “plant’’ and to “‘build’’ go together; they are God’s work and have their 
opposites in God’s — judgment to “break down” and “pluck up” (Jer. 1:10; 
24:6). It is God himself who will rebuild Israel (Jer. 31:4; 33:7). He does his work 
by putting his words in the mouths of the prophets (Jer. 1:9 f.). He leads the peoples 
into the fellowship of the people of Israel and thus “‘builds them up” (Jer. 12:14 ff.). 
This OT use of the concept particularly influenced Paul’s usage. A further element 
in the OT, which became effective in the NT, is the recognition that men cannot 
build a house for God (Isa. 66:1; — oikos). 

NT 1. The apocalyptic-messianic use of oikodome6 in the gospels (only one passage 

in Jn.) is linked to this recognition. At the same time it also takes over from the 
OT the traditional opposition of build and — destroy (katalyein). Such usage 
occurs in Mk. 14:58, and par. Matt. 26:61; Jn. 2:19 ff.; and also Matt. 16:18. 
Jesus’ enigmatic saying, which was used to prove the accusation against him at his 
trial, speaks of destroying the temple that is made with hands and in three days 
building another, not made with hands (Mk. 14:58). Jn. 2:19 ff. interprets this in 
terms of the — resurrection and even alters oikodoméso (“I will build’’), which 
was probably the original word, to the ambiguous egero (“I will raise’’, v. 19). 
Since that time Mk. 14:58 has stood in the shadow of this interpretation, although 
this passage — independent of Jn. 2:19 ff. can be understood perfectly well as a 
prophecy of the erection of the new temple, the eschatological community. Moreover 
the promise to Peter in Matt. 16:18 agrees with such an understanding. Even if the 
question has to remain open, whether the fut. oikodoméso refers in both passages 
to the parousia of the Son of Man (cf. Mk. 13:26 f.; + Present) or to the power of 
Christ’s resurrection and of Pentecost to build up the community, there is an 
ultimate reference to the community (— Church) as the eschatological “building of 

2. The usage of Acts is also to be seen against its OT background. Acts 15:16 
refers to Amos 9:11 and perhaps to Jer. 12:15 ff. and promises the eschatological 
restoration of the people of Israel. Acts 9:31 and 20:32 have “a typically ecclesi- 
astical ring’? (O. Michel, TDNT V 139) without any reference to the action of the 

3. The most important passages for the understanding of the concept occur in 
Paul’s letters, where, moreover, almost all the occurrences of the noun are to be 
found. However, the verbal use is more important. oikodomé has the meaning of a 
building only in 1 Cor. 3:9 and 2 Cor. 5:1 (See below, 5); otherwise it denotes the 
process of building and has the same meaning as the vb. 

(a) The term describes the apostolic activity (2 Cor. 10:8; 13:10; 12:19) against 
the background of OT models (cf. Jer. 1:10; 24:6; especially the opposition of 
“destroy” and “build up’’). 1 Cor. 3:5-17 also belongs here. In this passage Paul 
combines two images, that of planting and that of building, in order to illustrate the 
process of building the “temple of God” (the Christian community; v. 16) in one 
great allegory. 

(b) Apart from the activity of the apostle, oikodomeo is used to describe the 
growth (— Grow) and expansion of the community through the Spirit. “oikodome 
denotes the goal of knowledge, yet also the inner growth of the community and 



the content and purpose of its liturgical life and its meetings’ (O. Michel, TDNT V 
141). Therefore, there is one rule which applies to everything which happens within 
the community: it must serve to build up the community (1 Cor. 14:12, 17, 26; 
Rom. 14:19; 15:2; 1 Thess. 5:11; Eph. 4:29). Thus the — gifts of — grace and 
offices are judged according to what they contribute to the building up of the 
community (1 Cor. 14:3-5; Eph. 4:12). Paul scolds the Corinthians: ‘““Knowledge 
puffs up, but love builds up” (1 Cor. 8:1). The enthusiasts in Corinth probably had 
a slogan, ““Knowledge builds up,’’ which Paul is here correcting. Similarly in 
1 Cor. 10:23 Paul corrects the Corinthian slogan, panta exestin, ‘“‘All things are 
lawful’, by urging people to ask themselves whether their actions are conducive to 
building up the community. 

(c) It is striking that the positive use of the word always refers to the community. 
Paul uses sharp words (cf. 1 Cor. 14:19) to criticize the man who speaks in a tongue 
on his own to “edify [oikodomei] himself” (1 Cor. 14:4). Edification which is not 
aimed at serving others is self-centred and pointless. 

4. While 1 Cor. 3 mixes the images of planting and building, a further image 
appears alongside that of building in Eph. 4:12, 16, the image of the — body of 
Christ. This hints at gnostic ideas and leads to the thought that the building grows 
(like an organism). The same idea of the building “‘growing”’ (the corner stone of 
which, Jesus Christ has indeed already been put in position; — Rock) appears in 
Eph. 2:19 ff. (cf. also Ps. 118:22f.; Matt. 21:42; Mk. 12:10f.; Lk. 20:17; Acts 
4:7; 1 Pet. 2:7). To be built into this growing building, on which God himself is 
building, means to be put in as a “‘living stone” (1 Pet. 2:5). All these passages are 
concerned with the unity and holiness of the temple of God, the Christian com- 

5. 2 Cor. 5:1 is the only passage where oikodomé is used as an anthropological 
term in a sense which, at least at first sight, is individualistic. The transient tent 
of the earthly body is here contrasted with an eternal oikodomé, prepared by 
God, not made with hands. 

6. The compounds synoikodomeo (build together; pass. be built into [Eph. 2:22]) 
and epoikodomeé (build on something, build further) underline once again by the 
prepositions used the idea of fellowship which is contained in the concept of 
“building up’’. Believers are rooted and grounded in Christ (Col. 2:7). The Chris- 
tian community is built up together in the co-operation of all the participants 
(1 Cor. 3:10—4), and in unity with apostles and prophets (Eph. 2:20), to become the 
one holy community of the Lord. 

J. Goetzmann 

| , ean oikovopia (oikonomia), management, office; oikovdmoc 
a | (oikonomos), steward; oikovoyé@ (oikonomed), manage, 
administer, plan. 

CL oikonomia, attested from Xen. and Plato on, denoted primarily the management 

of a household, but was soon extended to the administration of the state (the 
title of one of Xen.’s books), and finally was used for every kind of activity which 
results from the holding of an office. 



oikonomos (from Aesch. on) was used of people, and has a more concrete mean- 
ing. It denotes the house-steward, and then by extension the managers of individual 
departments within the household, e.g. the porter, the estate manager, the head 
cook, the accountant, all domestic officials who were mostly recruited from among 
the slaves. Similarly, oikonomed means to manage as a house-steward, order, 

OT The occurrence of the words in the LXX does not give much help towards 

understanding the NT concept. oikonomia only occurs in Isa. 22:19, 21, and 
then in the original meaning of administration, office. oikonomos appears some- 
what more frequently and is likewise used in the technical sense of the word for a 
court official, chiefly the royal palace governor (‘al habbayit, e.g. Eliakim in 2 Ki. 
18:18, 37; 19:2; Isa. 36:3, 22; 37:2; cf. also 1 Ki. 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; Est. 1:8; 8:9). 

NT In the NT, too, the word-group does not appear at all frequently: oikonomia 

occurs 9 times, oikonomos 10 times and oikonomeo only once (Lk. 16:2). 
Nevertheless, something like a specific NT usage has been established which has 
two main different aspects. 

1. (a) The words are used in their technical sense to denote the occupation of 
household and estate managers and their tasks (Lk. 12:42; 16:1 ff.; cf. the use as a 
title with the name in Rom. 16:23, “Erastus the city treasurer’ [cf. H. J. Cadbury, 
“Erastus of Corinth’, JBL 50, 1931, 42-58]). Gal. 4:2 also belongs in this category. 
Here oikonomos is used to describe man’s age of minority before the sending of 
Christ, but it also serves within the metaphor as the designation of an occupation, 
in order to clarify a legal concept: ‘‘But he is under guardians [epitropous| and 
trustees [oikonomous| until the date set by the father’ (RSV). In Lk., the only 
gospel in which oikonomos and oikonomia appear, oikonomos is used, alternately 
with doulos, slave (Lk. 12:42 ff.; cf. par. Matt. 24:45 ff.). Admittedly all the pass- 
ages in Lk. occur in parables, so one can on this ground speak in a certain sense of 
a metaphorical use of the words. 

({Ed.] Interesting light on the parable in Lk. 16:1-17 has been shed by J. D. M. 
Derrett, ““The Parable of the Unjust Steward”, NTS 7, 1961, 198-219, reprinted in 
Law in the New Testament, 1970, 48-77. Making extensive use of Jewish laws and 
customs in the light of later sources, Derrett puts forward a rationale of the parable. 
The Mosaic Law forbade the taking of interest on loans from fellow Jews [Exod. 
22:25; Lev. 25:36; Deut. 23:19 f.]. The Pharisees who had considerable business 
concerns found ways of evading the intention of the law without transgressing the 
letter. They argued that the law was concerned with protecting the destitute and 
not with business enterprises for mutual profit. So long as a man had some of the 
commodity which he wished to borrow he was not destitute. The bills in the parable 
preserve the letter of the law by not mentioning interest but only the amount to 
be repaid in terms of commodities. The steward who was legally entitled to act in 
his master’s name saw an opportunity to make provision for his future needs by 
ingratiating himself with his master’s debtors. He simply cancelled the interest 
and got the debtors to sign new notes stating the original amount of principal to be 
repaid. The master was quick to appreciate the shrewdness of the move. For it not 
only helped to feather the unjust steward’s nest, but it also put the master right in 
the eyes of the law. By forfeiting the illegal exorbitant interest he was at least 



conforming to the requirements of the law. In its context the parable is a reminder 
to the disciples to exercise stewardship of this world’s goods [— Possessions, art. 
mamonas], so that when mammon fails “they” [i.e. the poor, or possibly even God] 
may receive them “‘in the eternal habitations’”’ [v. 9]. The following verses emphasize 
the point that while wealth is not to be sought for its own sake, wise and diligent 
stewardship of it in the master’s service is important. Faithful stewardship in this 
determines whether God will entrust to the disciple true riches [vv. 10 f.].) 

(b) The position is similar in the rest of the NT. In 1 Cor. 4:1 Paul uses oikonomos 
metaphorically to describe the apostolic task and, just as in the gospels, alongside 
doulos. Also as in the gospels (Lk. 12:42; 16:10 f.; Matt. 25:21 ff.; cf. Lk. 19:17 ff.), 
1 Cor. 4:2 names faithfulness as the essential requirement in a steward. In the same 
way Tit. 1:7 requires that “a bishop, as God’s steward, must be blameless.’’ In 
1 Pet. 4:10 all the members of the community, as recipients of the gifts of grace, 
are called “‘stewards of God’s varied grace.” 

(c) To understand the concepts of oikonomia and oikonomos one must refer to 
their roots in the concept of the house, as it is in the NT (— oikos). God’s people, 
God’s community, is his house, which he builds up through the work of those he 
has called to the task, to whom he entrusts the stewardship of the house. They 
are not to look upon these household affairs as their own; they are merely stewards 
of the gifts entrusted to them and have to give an account of their stewardship 
(Lk. 16:2; cf. the parable of the pounds, Lk. 19:11 ff., cf. Matt. 25:14 ff., which 
must be taken into account in the explanation of the concept, even though oikono- 
mos does not appear in them). In addition to the gifts of the Spirit (1 Pet. 4:10) it is 
above all the — gospel which is thought of as something entrusted to stewards. 
Thus in 1 Cor. 4:1 Paul introduces himself and his fellow-workers as ‘‘servants 
of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God.’’ Likewise in 1 Cor. 9:17 Paul calls 
the preaching of the gospel a “‘commission” (oikonomia) from which he cannot 
withdraw. Col. 1:25 and Eph. 3:2 perhaps also belong in this category. In these 
passages the divine office committed to the apostle is under discussion. Admittedly 
there could be some doubt in both cases whether the meaning here is not “plan of 
salvation”’ (see below, 2). 

2. The use of the word oikonomia moves in a second direction in the sense of 
God’s plan of salvation. This meaning, related to salvation history, could have 
arisen on the basis of the breadth of meaning of the Gk. word (see above, 1), which 
can denote the plans and arrangements of the authorities as well as measures through 
which the help of heavenly powers can be obtained (e.g. in the magical papyri 
referred to by O. Michel, 7TDNT V 152). In Eph. it is used for God’s plan of 
salvation, which was hidden from eternity in God (Eph. 3:9), and now, in the 
fullness of time, has been realized in Christ (Eph. 1:10). The soteriological sense 
of the concept figured alongside other uses in the later patristic literature (e.g. 
Justin, Dial. 30, 3; 45, 4; Irenaeus, Haer. 1, 10, 3; 4, 33, 7; see Lampe, 940-3). 

3. The first and second meanings of the term are nevertheless not completely 
independent. Because God allows his plan of salvation to be proclaimed through 
men (1 Cor. 4:1; cf. the use of mystérion, — secret, here and in Eph. 3:9), the work 
of the oikonomos is rooted in the divine oikonomia. Just as — time has its function 
in God’s plan, a definite period of time is given to the steward, even though he may 
not himself know how long it is (Lk. 12:46). At the end of it he must render his 



account. Thus on the basis of God’s plan of salvation — time itself is a gift en- 
trusted to men, to be used (Col. 4:5; Eph. 5:15 f.) and managed responsibly. 

J. Goetzmann 
— Body, — Church, — Priest, — Serve, ~ Temple, > Tent 

(a). S. Aalen, “ ‘Reign’ and ‘House’ in the Kingdom of God in the Gospels”, N7S 8, 1961-62, 
215-40; K. Aland, Did the Early Church Baptize Infants ?, 1963; A. Badawy, Architecture in 
Ancient Egypt and the Near East, 1966; J. E. Crouch, The Origin and Intention of the Colossian 
Haustafel, 1972; J. D. M. Derrett, Law in the New Testament, 1970, 48-77; N. Hillyer, “‘ ‘Spiritual 
Milk ... Spiritual House’”’, TB 20, 1969, 126; J. Jeremias, Infant Baptism in the First Four 
Centuries, 1960; and The Origins of Infant Baptism: A Further Study in Reply to Kurt Aland, 1963; 
O. Michel, oikos etc., TDNT 119-59; J. Pedersen, Israel: Its Life and Culture, I-IJ, 1926, 46-96; 
J. Reumann, ‘“Oikonomia-Terms in Paul in comparison with Lucan Heilsgeschichte’, NTS 13, 
1966-67, 147-67; E. H. Robertson, ‘“‘The House Church” in Basileia, Festschrift for W. Freytag, 
19617, 366 ff.; H. G. Stigers, ““House”’, ZPEB III 217-21 (discusses structure of houses in the 
east); R. de Vaux, ‘“‘Family Institutions”, Ancient Israel, 1961, 19-61. 

(b). H. Brattgard, Jm Haushalt Gottes, 1964; G. Delling, ‘“Zur Taufe von ‘Hausern’ im Urchris- 
tentum’’, NovT 7, 1965, 285 ff.; E. Friedel, “Der neutestamentliche oikos-Begriff in seiner Bedeut- 
ung fiir den Gemeindeaufbau’’, in Festschrift for M. Mitzenheim, 1961; H. Galley, ““Das ‘Haus’ 
im Neuen Testament”’, Evangelisch-Lutherische Kirchenzeitung 15, 1961, 201 ff.; E. Jenni, bayit 
THAT | 307-13; E. Kasemann, Leib und Leib Christi, 1933; E. Stauffer, ““Zur Kindertaufe in der 
Urkirche”’, Deutsches Pfarrerblatt, 1949, 152 ff.; A. Strobel, ‘““Der Begriff des Hauses im griechi- 
schen und r6mischen Privatrecht”, ZNW 56, 1965, 91 ff.; P. Vielhauer, Oikodomé. Das Bild vom 
Bau in der christlichen Literatur vom Neuen Testament bis Clemens Alexandrinus, 1940; P. Weigandt, 
“Zur sogenannten ‘Oikosformel’ ”’, NovT 6, 1963, 49 ff. 

Humility, Meekness 

[mpadcs mpavc¢ (prays), gentle, humble, considerate, meek; 
mpabdtns (prayptes), gentleness, humility, considerateness, 

meekness; zpaiiadia (praypathia), gentleness; émieixnyc (epieikés), mild, yielding, 

gentle, kind, forbearing; ézei(Kela (epieikeia), mildness, forbearance, gentleness, 

CL prays (from Homer on) is etymologically linked with the Gothic frjyon to love, 
frionds, friend, and means friendly, mild, gentle. The noun praytés (from Thuc. 
on) and praypathia, derived from praypatheia, means gentle, mild friendliness. 
The virtually synonymous epieikés, and the noun epieikeia are derived either from 
eikos, becoming, decent, or from eiko, to yield, give way, and mean (from Homer 
on) the proper way of life, or (from Thuc. on) forbearance, indulgence, mildness. 
Words from the prays group are used of things (e.g. mild words, soothing medi- 
cine, actions and feelings), animals (tame) and people (benevolent). It is a quality 
shown by friends, while stern harshness may be expected from an enemy. 
epieikés, together with its derivatives, was originally an expression for the 
balanced, intelligent, decent outlook in contrast to licentiousness. Then it was used 
for a considerate, thoughtful attitude in legal relationships which was prepared to 
mitigate the rigours of justice, with its laws and claims, in contrast to the attitude 
which demands that rights, including one’s own, should be upheld at all costs. 
Both concepts are opposed to unbridled anger, harshness, brutality and self- 
expression. They represent character traits of the noble-minded, the wise man who 



remains meek in the face of insults, the judge who is lenient in judgment, and the 
king who is kind in his rule. Hence they appear often in pictures of the ideal ruler 
and in eulogies on men in high positions. 

In Gk. and Hel. philosophy both concepts express social virtues and ideals of 
high value. Aristot. considered that they were the happy mean between passion 
and lack of feeling (TDNT VI 646). 

OT |. epieikeia is found 10 times in the LXX and epieikés, including the adv., 6 

times, without any real Heb. equivalent. They are used to describe God’s 
gracious gentleness in his rule (1 Sam. 12:22; Ps. 86:5; Wis. 12:18), and also the 
actions of a king (2 Macc. 9:27), of a prophet (2 Ki. 6:3), and of the pious (Wis. 

2. prays, found 19 times in the LXX, translates ‘ani (3 times), poor, afflicted, 
humble; and more generally its later variant ‘andw, poor, humble, meek. The fact 
that the LXX can translate ‘andadw (21 times in the OT) and ‘ani (65 times in the OT) 
also by penés and ptochos (— Poor) and — tapeinos shows that the Heb. terms had 
a much wider connotation which is not satisfied by any of the LXX renderings. The 
poor were those in Israel who were without landed property. They were wrongfully 
restricted, disinherited, and deprived of the fullness which God willed (~ Poor, art. 
penés, OT 3). Hence they were often the victims of unscrupulous exploitation (Isa. 
32:7; Ps. 37:14; Job 24:4). In a general sense ‘dni denotes the defenceless, those 
without rights, the oppressed, those who are cheated, exploited and cursed (cf. 
Pss. 9 and 10). 

Yahweh, however, takes the part of the ‘ani (Exod. 22:21-24; Deut. 24:14 f.), 
-as do the prophets (Isa. 3:14f.; Amos 2:7; 8:4; Zech. 7:10) and the wisdom 
literature (Prov. 14:21; 22:22; 31:9, 20). Since Yahweh is the God of those without 
rights (Pss. 25:9; 149:4; 34:2[3]), he hears and comforts those who find no mercy 
among their fellow-men (Isa. 29:19; Job 36:15) and will finally reverse all that is 
not now in their favour (Isa. 26:6; Pss. 37:11; 147:6). Hence ‘ani and particularly 
‘anaw change their meaning from those who are materially poor, and become the 
self-chosen religious title of those who in deep need and difficulty humbly seek 
help from Yahweh alone, or have found it there (e.g. Pss. 40:17[18]; 102[102:1], 
title; Zeph. 2:3; 3:12; Isa. 41:17; 49:13; 66:2). In the Qumran texts they are used 
generally of the community members (— Poor, art. ptdchos, oT 5). Hence the word 
is Sometimes used with the meaning meek, humble, modest (Num. 12:3; Eccl. 6:8). 

In the messianic passages of the OT God’s king is depicted as the helper of all 
who have been deprived of their rights and of all the needy (Pss. 45:4[5]; 72; Isa. 
11:4; 61:1). The term ‘ani is never applied to God, but in Zech. 9:9 (cf. Num. 
12:3; Sir. 45:4) it is a title of honour given to the messiah. As he rides the animal 
used by the socially insignificant, his way leads to the poor and those deprived of 
their rights. ([Ed.] Although rulers of Israel had ridden asses at an earlier period 
in history [Jdg. 5:10; 10:4; 12:14; 2 Sam. 16:2] the horse was the appropriate 
mount for the mighty [but note the scorn of the war-horse in v. 10; cf. Isa. 
2:7; 31:1]. The ass was the appropriate mount for one who comes on a mission 
of peace [cf. J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, 1972, 165 f.].) 

The sense of ‘ani is transformed in a number of passages, including Zech. 9:9, 
which the LXX renders by prays and thus substitutes for the more passive Heb. 



concept a Hel. act. and ethical meaning. A positive lack is transformed into the 
praiseworthy virtue of “gentleness” or “humility”. This is the dominant concept 
in Sir. 1:27; 4:8; 10:28 etc., and Josephus Ant. 19, 7, 3; 3, 6, 7; 5, 2, 12; 6, 1, 2; 
7, 6, 1. ({Tr.] However, since the 2nd and 3rd of the Sir. passages are found in the 
Heb. original with this meaning, it shows that the Hel. concept had influenced 
Palestinian Heb. by the early 2nd cent. B.c.) 

NT The words are found in the NT in Paul, Jas., 1 Pet., Acts (once epieikeia) and 

Matt. (3 times prajs). Clear OT influence is found only in Matt. For the rest, 
Hel. concepts are dominant. How far NT thought is based on the LXX and its OT 
background is not clear. Attention may be drawn to two points. 

1. Both prajtés and epieikeia are marks of Christ’s rule. In contrast to the repre- 
sentatives of a political messianism Jesus repudiated the use of force to bring about 
the rule of God. His activity on earth is that of the OT king who brings salvation 
without using force or war (Matt. 11:29; 21:5 = Zech. 9:9). Since, however, 
Matt. 11:29 has Sem. thinking behind it (cf. Isa. 42:2 f.; 53:1 ff.; Zech. 9:9; cf. 
TDNT V 993, n. 289), prays here suggests ‘dni, in the Heb. sense, and so stresses 
the human humility of the messiah. Luther saw him as a “‘Beggar-king’’ who had 
no means of enforcing his rights and who ultimately had to suffer all manner of 
injustice. In 2 Cor. 10:1 Paul mentions prajtés and epieikeia as characteristics 
of Jesus’ attitude to men during his life on earth, and holds them out as an example 
to the church. 

2. The words now express an attitude demanded of the Christian, though they 
are applied also to non-Christians (Acts 24:4, where epieikeia is used by the Jewish 
spokesman Tertullus in addressing the procurator Felix; 1 Pet. 2:18, of masters of 
slaves). They stand in the lists of virtues as concrete expressions of Christian love 
(Gal. 5:23; 1 Tim. 6:11; 1 Pet. 3:4) and of “the wisdom from above”’ (Jas. 3:17). 
They state the rule for the way in which Christians and non-Christians should live 
together (Phil. 4:5; Tit. 3:2). They also apply in dealing with Christians who have 
committed sins (1 Cor. 4:21; Gal. 6:1; 2 Tim. 2:25), and in the midst of enmity 
and persecution (1 Pet. 3:16). Christians should set an example of this (Jas. 3:13), 
especially — bishops (1 Tim. 3:3). 

({Ed.] prays occurs in the third Beatitude: “Blessed are the meek, for they shall 
inherit the earth” (Matt. 5:5). David Hill suggests that they are the same as the 
poor (v. 3) and that since the vb. kléronomed appears in Deut. 4:1, 16:20, and 
Ps. 68:36 (LXX) with reference to possessing the land of Israel, the thought here is 
_of possessing or inheriting the new promised land (The Gospel of Matthew, 1972, 
111). Just as obedience and righteousness are, for the Deuteronomist, the condi- 
tions of entrance into the promised land, so humble obedience to the teaching 
contained in the Beatitudes is the condition of entering the new land of God’s 
kingdom. The verse takes up the theme of Ps. 37:11. Hill notes that the Ps., the 
themes of which are close to the whole series of the Beatitudes, was taken by the 
Qumran sect as a prophecy in process of fulfilment through the establishment of 
their messianic community (4QpPs37; cf. op. cit., 112). The Beatitude promises 
that those who are now oppressed and despised and have nothing to call their own 
(like Israel prior to the conquest of Canaan) will enter the — inheritance of God’s 
rule upon earth. At the same time it is a veiled statement about Jesus himself.) 



When the NT advocates prajtés, it does not imply an attitude dependent solely 
on the human will. It is a sign of salvation: of “calling”? (Eph. 4:2), election (Col. 
3:12), and the work of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:23). It is not a virtue in the Hel. 
sense, but a possibility of life and action given by God. It is not an aspect of human 
temperament. It comes about when men are linked with Christ and are conformed 
to his — image. W. Bauder 

[tamed Tamelvoc (tapeinos), lowly, humble; tazeivdw (tapeinod), 
make low, humble; tamzéivmaic (tapeindsis), abasement, 
humiliation; tanzelvo¢dpwv (tapeinophron), humble-minded; tazetvodpoatbvn 
(tapeinophrosyné), lowliness of mind, humility. 

CL tapeinos was originally used (from Pindar in the Sth cent. B.c. on) with the sense 

of low-lying. Metaphorical uses were soon developed: (a) low socially, poor, 
of little social position and influence (Hdt., 5th cent. B.c. onwards), powerless, 
unimportant; (b) as a result of one’s social standing, with slavish outlook, a syno- 
nym of not free; (c) despondent, downcast (Thuc., 5th cent. B.c. onwards; cf. Eng. 
“T’m feeling down”’); (d) in Socratic and post-Socratic ethical teaching the word 
was separated from its social links, but retained a depreciatory connotation. Men 
should avoid the two extremes of arrogance, provocation and pride (Aybris), and of 
grovelling, servile behaviour and base flattery. (e) Occasionally the word is used 
with a good connotation in individual, social, ethical and religious contexts. Where 
this is so, it does not mean humble, but unassuming (in Xen.), obedient, conforming 
one’s behaviour to the righteous laws of the gods (Aesch., Plato). In all these uses 
there remains the memory of the original physical meaning of below, low, in 
comparison with that which is above or higher. 

The vb. tapeinoo (from Hippocrates, 5th cent. B.c. onwards) represents in all its 
varieties of meaning the various shades of meaning of the adj.: to level, humble 
(socially, politically, economically), harm, make small, make humble, discourage 
(with fate or life as subject), make one obedient, or self-effacing, make a person 
obey a regulation (of the reason) (and also the appropriate pass. forms). The 
reflex. form with heauton and the mid. (from Diod.Sic., lst cent. B.c. onwards used 
also for mental states) meaning humble oneself, demean oneself, are used normally 
only in a derogatory sense. Yet Philodemus of Gadara (lst cent. B.c.) demands that 
those who humbled themselves, should be comforted and lifted up (TDNT VIII 4) 
and Plut. (1st cent. A.D.) mentions the custom of humbling oneself before the gods 
by covering the head during sacrifice and prayer (JT DNT VIII 5). 

tapeinotés (Thuc., 5th cent. B.c. onwards) is found only in secular contexts apart 
from Sir. 13:20. It generally conveys the experience of humiliation, lowliness, and 
powerlessness, while tapeindsis (from Plato, 5th—-4th cents. B.c. onwards) suggests 
rather the process of humiliation, etc. 

The compounds with phronein, think, judge, be disposed, are the vb. tapeino- 
Phronein, the adj. tapeinophron, and the noun tapeinophrosyné. They first occur in 
secular literature in the Ist and 2nd cents. A.D. (Josephus, Plutarch, Epictetus), 
always with a depreciatory connotation: e.g. to think poorly, ill; to be ill-disposed, 
faint-hearted, or weakly; to have a servile mind. The LXX, however, which does 



not use the noun, has the vb. (which means be humble, modest) once in Ps. 131(130):2 
for the MT quieten the mind, and the adj. once in Prov. 29:23, meaning lowly in 
spirit in a good sense. The opposite in both passages and in Sir. 13:20 (see above) is © 
—> pride, insolence and arrogance. 

OT The fundamental difference between the Gk. and the biblical use of these words 

has already been indicated. In the Gk. world, with its anthropocentric view 
of man, lowliness is looked on as shameful, to be avoided and overcome by act and 
thought. In the NT, with its theocentric view of man, the words are used to describe 
those events that bring a man into a right relationship with God and his fellow-man 
(cf. TDNT VIII 11 f.). 

|. tapeinos and its cognates are found about 270 times in the LXX, the adj. 
66 times, the vb. c. 160 times, and tapeindsis 40 times. For the compounds see 
above. They represent 7 Heb. roots: by far the most common is ‘andh (86 times), 
to oppress, afflict, humble (— prays); Sapal (42 times), to become low, be abased; 
kana‘ (15 times), be subdued, humbled; daka@’, dakah (13 times), crush, humiliate; 
dal, dalal (7 times), low, insignificant, helpless, downcast; sahah (6 times), bow 
down, crouch; yiggdah (5 times), vex, grieve. ““nawdah (derived from ‘anéh), humility, 
the attitude of the mind of the one who bends down, occurs only 4 times (Prov. 
15:33; 18:12; 22:4; Zeph. 2:3). 

2. In its translation of these Heb. concepts the LXX uses the full range of mean- 
ing of this word-group and adds a few variants of its own; e.g. to humble a woman 
in a sexual sense (2 Sam. 13:12; Deut. 21:14; Ezek. 22:10 f.); to rape (Gen. 34:2, 
etc.); to bow one’s soul, i.e. fast (e.g. Lev. 16:29; Isa. 58:3). But above all the words 
occur in expression of belief in what Yahweh has done. It is God himself by his acts 
in history who brings down the proud and arrogant, and chooses and rescues the 
humiliated. This recognition is expressed in a number of ways. 

(a) The prophets expressed it in warnings of judgment (cf. Amos 2:6b, 7 with 
2:6a, 13 ff.; 8:6 with 8:7f.; Isa.2:9, 11, 17; 5:15; 10:33 f.; 14:32, against the 
Philistines; Zeph. 2:3, Ezek. 21 :26[31]) and in promises (Zeph. 3:12; Ezek. 17:24; 
Isa. 49:13; 53:8 [In his humiliation his judgment was taken away’’, LXX]; Isa. 
54:11; 66:2b; 26:6). 

(b) The historical books see it in events. This is shown in their general theological 
attitudes and in their corresponding choice of language (Jdg. 4:23; 6:15 ff., choice 
of Gideon; | Sam. 1:11, 16, Hannah’s prayer, and 2:7 ff., her song of praise; 
7:13; 18:23 ff.; 2 Sam. 22:28, in David’s thanksgiving for victory; 1 Chr. 17:10, 
in the promise given to David, 1 Ki. 8:35 par. 2 Chr. 6:26; cf. Ps. 18:27 ({MT 
28; LXX 17:28]). These speeches, prayers and songs have a common characteristic 

(c) The Pss. and Lam. repeat it in their certainty expressed in their prayers (e.g. 
Pss. 10:17 f. [LXX 9:38 f.]; 25:18 [LXX 24:18]; 31:7 [MT 31:8; LXX 30:8]; 
34:18 [MT 34:19; LXX 33:19]; 38:8, 22 [MT 38:9, 23; LXX 37:9, 23]; 44:19, 
25 f. [MT 44:20, 26 f.; LXX 43:20, 26 f.]; 51:17 [MT 51:19]; 74:21 [LXX 73:21]). 
There is the frequent parallelism with — poor. In Ps. 82 [LXX 81] the relationship 
of v. 3 with vv. 5ff. shows that the gods are incapable of giving justice to the lowly, 
and so God himself must judge (v. 8). Other examples are Pss. 90:3 [LXX 89:3], 



where dakka’, meaning crushed matter, dust, is translated by tapeindsis; 102:15—20 
[MT 102:16-21; LXX 101:16-21], especially v. 17; 113:5-9 [LXX 112:5-9], a 
song of praise; 116:10 [LXX 115:1], cf. with v. 1 [LXX 114:1 f.], a hymn of thanks; 
119 [LXX 118]; 50, 67, 71, 75, 92, the law of God comforts in lowliness; 107 
[LXX 106]; 131:2 [LXX 130:2], 136:23 [LXX 135:23], a hymn of thanks; 138:6 
[LXX 137:6], cf. 113:5-9; 142:6 [MT 142:7; LXX 141:7]; Lam. 1:5b, 8b, 12c, 
20; 2:5c, 18, 20; 3:32—34 (cf. with vv. 31, 37 f.); Isa. 25:1-5S. 

(d) Proverbs in the wisdom literature speak of humility as the fruit of experience 
and as arule for life: e.g. cf. Job 5:11 with 8:12, 21 (LXX and Vulg. only, not MT); 
Prov. 3:34 (the LXX is more explicit than the MT); 11:2, cf. v. 1; 15:33 (MT 
“humility’’), par. to “the fear of the Lord” (the LXX has tapeinos only in some 
MSS, but cf. 16:2 where it is lacking in the MT); in 16:19 tapeinosis is par. to 
praythymos, gentleness; 18:22; 2:4, the LXX translates humility [MT] by wisdom; 
cf. also 25:7; 29:23; Eccles. 10:6; Sir. 7:11; 10:15 ff.;, 11:12 f. 

3. The members of the Qumran sect called themselves the — poor, and in the 
Community Rule virtuous humility is mentioned along with loving kindness (the 
opposites of anger and grumbling), truth, right thinking, faithfulness, unity and 
patience as the great virtue of the community (1QS 2:24; 4:3; 5:3, 25). But this 
attitude stands alongside a hatred for the ruling sons of darkness (1QS 9:22; 11:1). 
Humility is the proper attitude before God: “‘his iniquity shall be expiated by the 
spirit of uprightness and humility” (1QS 3:8) and man’s humility submits to God’s 
chastisement (1QH 17:22); “‘his flesh . . . is made clean by the humble submission 
of his soul to all the precepts of God” (1QS 3:8). 

4. Apocalyptic literature sees in humility the eschatological attitude to which 
the promise of the reward and the help of God are addressed (Test.Gad. 5:3; 2 Esd. 
8 : 47-54). 

5. For the rabbis, humility also had a high place in the scale of virtues that men 
should attempt to attain (cf. SB I 191-194). A humble spirit was regarded as the 
characteristic sign of the Jew (cf. especially the polemic against the pride of the 
Gentiles, Pirke Aboth 5:21). Jesus’ teaching indicates the discrepancy between this 
high theoretical claim and arrogant Rab. and Pharisaic practice (Matt. 23:1 ff.; 
Lk. 18:9-14). They were humble among themselves, but they considered ignorance 
of the — law as due either to sin or to God’s disfavour. They equated human 
effort with God’s grace, and so had a faulty concept of God and of themselves. 

NT Members of the word-group are found 34 times in the NT: tapeinos 8 times, 

tapeinoo 14 times, tapeindsis 4 times, the compound tapeinophron once, and the 
noun tapeinophrosyné 7 times (only in Acts and the epistles). Their distribution is: 
Matt. 4 times, Lk. 7 times, Acts twice, Rom. once, 2 Cor. 4 times, Eph. once, Phil., 
4 times, Col. 3 times, Jas. 4 times, 1 Pet. 4 times. Thus no members of the word- 
group are found in Mk., the Johannine writings or epistles other than those men- 
tioned above. 

1. In Matt. and Lk. the words are closely linked with the proclamation of the 
eschatological breaking-in of the kingly rule of God. This is the new element in the 
frequent use of OT and Jewish texts. Lk. introduces the theme already in the intro- 
ductory chs. of his Gospel. The mother of Jesus in the Magnificat praised the 
grandeur of God in OT phrases (1 Sam. 1:11; cf. Ps. 113:5-9), “for he has regarded 



the low estate of his handmaiden”’ (Lk. 1:48), where handmaiden, i.e. slave, inter- 
prets low estate (cf. v. 38). “He has .. . exalted those of low degree’”’ (Lk. 1:52; cf. 
1 Sam. 2:7; Job 5:11; Ps. 75:7[8]; Ezek. 21:26[MT 21:31]). The work of John the 
Baptist (Lk. 3:1 ff.) is then presented as preparing for the coming of God, and in 
accordance with the prophecy of Isa. 40:3 ff.: “every mountain and hill shall be 
brought low” (Lk. 3:5). | 

He who thus came went the way of humility (Matt. 11:29, see below). He could, 
therefore, (a) in his warning against desire for status (Lk. 14:11; cf. Mk. 10:15; 
Matt. 18:4; 1 Pet. 5:5; Prov. 3:34; 25:7), (b) in his controversy with the Pharisees 
(Lk. 18:14), and (c) in his attack on them and the scribes (Matt. 23:12), promise that 
he who humbles himself (tapeinoun heauton) will be exalted at the last by God. (The 
passive is used to avoid the mention of God’s name.) At the same time he threat- 
ened the proud with the last judgment, each time using the same proverb (cf. 1 
Sam. 2:7; 2 Sam. 22:28; Ezek. 21:26[31]; Sir. 7:11) but giving it in the eschato- 
logical situation a quite new meaning (A. Dihle, RAC III 748). 

The foundation of this promise, admonition and warning is found in Jesus’ own 
way of life, as he interpreted it in his invitation in Matt. 11:28 ff. He is ““meek”’ 
(prays) and “‘lowly in heart” (tapeinos té kardia). The two thoughts stand in 
parallel and show that Jesus was submissive before God, completely dependent on 
him, and devoted to him, and at the same time humble before men whose servant 
and helper he had become (Lk. 22:27; Mk. 10:45; Matt. 20:28; cf. W. Grund- 
mann, TDNT VIII 20). That is why he can call those who labour and are heavy 
laden to himself and offer them eschatological rest as they follow him; contrast 
Sir. 51: 23-30 with its call to follow simply the ethical example set by the teacher 
of the law (cf. A. Schlatter, Der Evangelist Matthdus, 19638, 386 ff.). ‘“The highest 
dignity of Jesus and his willingness to accept the cross... are one” (J. Schniewind, 
Das Evangelium nach Matthadus, NTD 8, 1960°, ad loc.). See also Phil. 2:6 ff. below. 

Matt. 18:1—5 with its teaching on humility shows that Jesus’ call to discipleship 
should not be confused with ethical attainment. The demand to humble oneself 
like the child placed among the disciples does not mean that one should make 
oneself lower than one actually is. Rather, one should know, like the child, how 
lowly one really is. Humility is to know how lowly we really are before God. At the 
same time the use of the word “child” is a reminder of the — Father in > heaven. 
This kind of humility and lowliness are joy and bliss (J. Schniewind, ad loc.; cf. J. 
Jeremias, The Parables of Jesus, 19637, 190 f.), for they permit one to share in the 
royal rule of heaven. 

2. (a) The central position of the Saviour’s invitation in Matt. corresponds to 
that of the hymn to Christ in Phil. 2:6—11 in Paul’s letters. In the description of 
Jesus Christ’s work from his self-emptying (v. 7—> Empty, art. kenos), through 
his self-humbling (v. 8c gives Paul’s decisive addition to the hymn he had taken 
over), to his exaltation by God, all the main lines of the OT proclamation of God’s 
sovereign control of history come into focus as they find their fulfilment. Here God 
stands by his word. At the same time the self-humiliation of Jesus Christ inaugur- 
ates the new life under his rule (vv. 10 f.). It is the basis of tapeinophrosyné, humility 
(v. 3), willingness to serve, conforming to his example; cf. also v. 5, “have this mind 
among yourselves... .’” The meaning of self-humiliation is doubly defined in Jesus 
Christ. On the one hand, he became obedient unto death, even the uttermost shame 



of the cross. On the other hand, he had no other support than the incredible promise 
of the faithfulness of God (cf. Pss. 22; 25:18; 31:17 [MT 31:8]; 90:3; 119:50, 92, 
150; and especially Isa. 53:7-12, cf. H. W. Wolff, Jesaja 53 im Urchristentum, 
19523, 98 f.). 

(b) Acts 8:35 expounds Isa. 53:7 f., quoted from the LXX, as referring to the 
humiliation and exaltation of Jesus Christ (cf. H. W. Wolff, op. cit., 90 ff.). 

(c) Paul understood his apostolic service to be one of following the Lord, who 
gave him strength through his own exaltation won through self-humiliation 
(Phil. 4:12 f.). Hence Paul knew “how to be abased”’ (tapeinousthai). This probably 
refers to being hungry and in need, suffering want and affliction (cf. 2 Cor. 11:23- 
29; 12:7-10). It may also include the physical work which, his enemies insinuated, 
was a penance for some hidden sin, but which Paul defended on the grounds that 
it enabled him to proclaim the gospel without charge (2 Cor. 11:7) and build up 
the church by his teaching. (For use of the vb. in the sense of “‘confess one’s guilt” 
cf. A. Schlatter, op. cit., 545.) Acts faithfully conveys Paul’s understanding of 
his apostolic service in the statement, “serving the Lord with all humility and with 
tears and with trials’ (Acts 20:19). Paul recognized God’s action both in humbling 
him through the failures (2 Cor. 12:21) which were manifest in the continuing 
strife (v. 20) and immorality (v. 21c) of the Corinthians, and in comforting those 
who were humbled by strife and inner fears (2 Cor. 7:5 f.; cf. Isa. 49:13). In the 
midst of the difficulties of his service Paul was supported by the — hope that the 
coming Lord would transform our body of humiliation (to sé6ma tés tapeindseds 
hémon, Phil. 3:21; “our lowly body’? RSV), i.e. our mortal body and make it like 
his glorious body. 

(d) In three passages in Paul’s letters words from this group are used with their 
original derogatory sense, in each case ironically in a polemical context. In 2 Cor. 
10:1 Paul quotes the taunt of his opponents that he was so “‘feeble”’ (tapeinos), when 
he was “‘face to face’’ with them (NEB), but was bold when far away. In Col. 2:18, 
23 he warns against the opponents who take pleasure in self-abasement, worship of 
angels and asceticism, each time using tapeinophrosyné. 

(e) Paul’s exhortation to humility is also rooted in the effective reality of Christ. 
Rom. 12:16 (cf. v. 1) warns against haughtiness and recommends, “give your- 
selves to humble tasks” (RSV mg.) or “associate with the lowly” (RSV tx., NEB) — 
depending on whether fois tapeinois is taken as neut. or masc. Similarly Eph. 4:2 
(cf. v.1) and Col. 3:12 (cf. v.1) enjoin willingness to serve (in each case tapeinophro- 
syné; RSV; ““meekness”; NEB ‘‘gentleness’’) which unites the church and holds it 
together (see above oT 3, on the community Rule at Qumran). Both passages use 
tapeinophrosyné parallel to prajtés (— prays NT), and the latter speaks of putting 
on willingness to serve like a garment (cf. below on 1 Pet. 5:5). 

3. The exhortations in Jas. and 1 Pet. do not add anything new to the OT and 
Pauline calls to humility. Jas. 1:9 f. speaks of the socially low, the poor, in contrast 
to the rich. Those who belonged to them could boast of their exaltation, while the 
rich, paradoxically, should boast that they were subject to death (tapeinosis, cf. 
v. 10c). Both statements were made in the light “‘of the coming transformation of the 
world’ (M. Dibelius, Der Brief des Jakobus, KEK 15, 19568, ad loc.). Jas. 4: 6b, par. 
1 Pet. 5:5c, is a quotation from Prov. 3:34 (LXX), which promises God’s favour 
to the humble. Both draw the conclusion (Jas. 4:10 par. 1 Pet. 5:6): “‘Humble 



yourselves before the Lord and he will exalt you” (cf. Gen. 16:9; Sir. 2:17). Since 
no literary dependence between the two letters can be demonstrated, the similarity 
points to “‘a common Christian exhortation” (TDNT VIII 19; cf. M. Dibelius, 
op. cit., 30). 1 Pet. 5:5 contains the metaphor of putting on clothing: “Clothe 
yourselves, all of you, with humility [tapeinophrosyné]” (cf. Jn. 13:4). 

4. Gradually the concept of “humility” in the church was reduced from an